Democrats' Discussion on Exiting "X" Concerns Broader Issues
Discussions with a dozen insiders reveal a party grappling with the decision of whether to exit or further engage with the rising MAGA platform.
TroibNews 
Two days post-election, Patrick Dillon, a seasoned Democratic strategist and current official in the Biden administration, shared on X that he was departing the platform.
“If you *really* want the ‘why I’m leaving twitter,’ I guess there’s the whole Elon of it,” Dillon stated, elaborating on additional motivations: he finds X to be pointless, recognizes it “hasn’t been much fun lately,” and, in light of Trump’s impact on the political landscape, remarked, “I’m just not sure that this is going to be the most constructive or even healthy vehicle to deal with that.”
As an adviser to Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, Dillon is part of a growing movement amongst Democrats and left-leaning individuals who are announcing their exits from the platform. This trend has included notable figures such as former CNN anchor Don Lemon, basketball star LeBron James, author Stephen King, actress Jamie Lee Curtis, and MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace in the weeks following the election.
For Democrats in positions of power, strategists, and others who rely on X to influence opinions and impact elections, the situation is more complex. While many express dissatisfaction with the platform, they must grapple with whether to isolate themselves from MAGA supporters or engage with them more thoroughly to foster understanding.
The motivations behind these departures vary widely.
“There’s no pretend at this point,” Dillon remarked in a conversation about his decision to leave. He posits that X has become a tool for Musk’s political aims, citing a decline in the platform's quality characterized by “trash ads and scammy replies and porn bots.” He also expressed concern that direct interactions with journalists have become questionable due to privacy issues under Musk's leadership.
A primary concern, Dillon articulated, is Musk’s use of the site for his political agenda.
In discussions with various left-leaning insiders, similar apprehensions were prevalent. Common factors driving the decision to leave include Musk’s rollback of misinformation filtering and the idea that the platform increasingly favors Trump’s interests.
However, some argue that the steady decrease in Democratic users is detrimental and that the progressives' self-exile from the platform is counterproductive.
“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,” remarked Maxwell Frost, a 27-year-old congressman from Florida.
Yet, stepping away from X isn't straightforward for many. Dillon himself has found it challenging.
He admitted in a recent post, “Look, the posting habit dies hard,” adding, “One day at a time.”
Many cite the platform's toxicity as a reason for their departure. Critics assert that since Musk acquired the site in 2022, there has been an uptick in hate and vitriol. For those who engage in discussions that can sway public opinion, the environment has become increasingly hostile, making it exceedingly difficult to operate effectively on X.
Environmentalist Bill McKibben, who amassed a following of over 380,000 accounts in his 15 years on the platform, recently announced his departure as well, stating, “I mistrust the owner and his role in our public life, and things have grown sad and harsh.” He recalled that after he recommended listening to John Coltrane, he received a response that read, “eat shit loser.”
This wave of resignations continued with journalist James Fallows, who also left after several years on the platform. He expressed a feeling of disillusionment, stating, “I’m leaving what Musk hath wrought.” New Republic writer Timothy Noah encapsulated the mood by declaring, “If you’re still on Elon Musk’s site you’re part of the problem,” citing Musk’s negative impact on public discourse.
In contrast, some argue for leaving as a proactive measure to diminish Musk’s influence on the platform. With Musk’s considerable wealth and power across numerous industries, critics believe refraining from engagement could weaken his grip on X.
“Moving to Bluesky,” noted Mark Green, a former public advocate of New York City, as he signaled his move away from X. He closed with, “Lots to say and do as we approach the start of the Trump-Musk Oligarchy.”
For non-profit advocacy group Free Press, staying on X had long been a topic of internal debate. Tim Karr, its senior director of strategy and communications, explained that recent shifts in the media landscape prompted the group to step back, considering that using the platform only helps validate its current state.
“The mere fact of posting means that you’re helping them make case for the return of advertisers,” argued Karr, leading to the decision to refrain from further engagement on the platform.
A Democratic Hill staffer, speaking anonymously, dismissed claims that leaving X would have any meaningful impact. “It’s already been legitimized,” they asserted, suggesting that remaining active on the platform might actually be more beneficial than abandoning it.
X maintains that its changing demographics are an improvement, citing research showing a nearly equal partisan split among users. CEO Linda Yaccarino emphasized, “More than any other platform, we represent the ENTIRE country!”
Despite the hostile atmosphere, some Democrats argue for the necessity of remaining on the platform to engage more effectively with a diversifying electorate.
A former Biden administration official lamented the tendency to withdraw. "They’re replicating the same mistake we made. ... Too much of the Biden administration was talking to itself and not the broader country," they stated, suggesting that disengagement leads to electoral disadvantages.
While acknowledging frustrations with Musk’s leadership, Adam Kovacevich, a left-leaning lobbyist, asserted the importance of maintaining connections with voters, emphasizing, “We have to recognize that if we’re only talking to ourselves, as Democrats we’re consigning ourselves to minority party status.”
Others express the necessity of contesting conservative ideologies in their territory. Consultant Kurt Bardella noted, "We have to be willing to take our fight to Republicans’ backyard,” supporting the notion that fostering dialogue in conservative spaces is vital for injecting alternative perspectives.
Some remain conflicted, understanding that while leaving X might seem justified, it could also represent a political miscalculation. An anonymous Democratic communications professional warned, “Leaving X because you don’t like Elon is the kind of purity politics that landed Democrats in this mess to begin with,” while concurrently pointing out that the platform's echo chamber has caused disconnection from the working class.
The diminishing liberal population on X leads to questions about its potential for effective use as its user base evolves.
One source encapsulated this ambivalence with a metaphor from *Lord of the Rings*, saying, “I love Twitter and also hate it … kinda like how Gollum feels about the ring.”As the conversation around X evolves, many left-leaning figures are grappling with the implications of their departures or potential departures. The tension between rejecting an environment they perceive as toxic and the need to engage with broader audiences remains a pivotal dilemma for Democrats and progressives.
Some proponents of staying argue that leaving X may inadvertently empower the very narratives they oppose. These voices emphasize that simply retreating from the platform allows it to become a space dominated by conservative thought leaders and those spreading misinformation. “If we want to influence our culture and politics, we can't ignore where these conversations are happening,” said one digital strategist closely involved in Democratic campaigns.
Moreover, there is a growing recognition that the landscape of social media is rapidly changing, and alternative platforms like Bluesky or Mastodon, while emerging, have not yet captured the vast audience that Twitter once had. For many Democrats, the reality is that while X may have become less hospitable, it still offers unique access to a wide array of potential voters, and abandoning it could mean losing that connection.
The need to advocate for a responsible, constructive discourse on social media is also paramount. Some activists suggest that if more progressive voices remain active on X, they can challenge harmful rhetoric and misinformation directly, ensuring their perspectives are heard amid the more aggressive narratives often pushed by right-wing users.
In a conference call last week, several prominent Democratic strategists discussed strategies for maintaining a presence on X while mitigating the toxicity. “We need to be vigilant about our content, and use our voices to push back against the negative aspects,” noted one participant. They highlighted the importance of creating campaigns that counteract misinformation while also presenting a compelling narrative for progressive values.
The broader implications of this digital landscape are concerning for many. If progressive voices continue to diminish on platforms like X, there is a real risk of retreating into echo chambers that only reinforce existing beliefs rather than challenge them. This could leave the political battleground too heavily skewed in favor of conservative narratives, as warned by some analysts tracking social media engagement trends.
“There is finally an acknowledgment that our presence on platforms like X is crucial not just for outreach but also for shaping the narrative,” shared another strategist. They advocated for more organized responses from Democrats to engage with the user base that remains active there, suggesting that effective counter-narratives could reshape discussions long dominated by the right.
As this debate continues, the tension between individual agency and collective responsibility weighs heavily on the shoulders of many in the Democratic party. Too often, personal frustrations with Musk and the platform seem to clash with the greater goal of reaching undecided or ambivalent voters.
For many figures who still participate on X, the call to action is clear. “If we want to steer the national conversation, we need to stay in the room, no matter how uncomfortable it might be,” emphasized one senior Democratic strategist. This sentiment reflects a growing awareness that positive change, particularly in a polarized political climate, demands engagement and resilience.
As the discussions around X play out within progressive circles, there remains an overarching question: what does it mean to resist the negative elements of a platform while still leveraging its potential for change? The answer might very well define the strategies of Democrats heading into future elections, as the interplay between withdrawal and engagement continues to evolve in the complex digital realm.
In the end, the stakes are high. As social media shapes political landscapes more than ever, the decisions made today by individuals within the Democratic party could resonate long into the future, affecting their ability to connect with voters and reshape the narrative. It is a delicate balance that both sides of the debate will need to navigate carefully in the coming months—an endeavor that will likely demand introspection, strategy, and a willingness to adapt.
Jessica Kline for TROIB News
“If you *really* want the ‘why I’m leaving twitter,’ I guess there’s the whole Elon of it,” Dillon stated, elaborating on additional motivations: he finds X to be pointless, recognizes it “hasn’t been much fun lately,” and, in light of Trump’s impact on the political landscape, remarked, “I’m just not sure that this is going to be the most constructive or even healthy vehicle to deal with that.”
As an adviser to Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, Dillon is part of a growing movement amongst Democrats and left-leaning individuals who are announcing their exits from the platform. This trend has included notable figures such as former CNN anchor Don Lemon, basketball star LeBron James, author Stephen King, actress Jamie Lee Curtis, and MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace in the weeks following the election.
For Democrats in positions of power, strategists, and others who rely on X to influence opinions and impact elections, the situation is more complex. While many express dissatisfaction with the platform, they must grapple with whether to isolate themselves from MAGA supporters or engage with them more thoroughly to foster understanding.
The motivations behind these departures vary widely.
“There’s no pretend at this point,” Dillon remarked in a conversation about his decision to leave. He posits that X has become a tool for Musk’s political aims, citing a decline in the platform's quality characterized by “trash ads and scammy replies and porn bots.” He also expressed concern that direct interactions with journalists have become questionable due to privacy issues under Musk's leadership.
A primary concern, Dillon articulated, is Musk’s use of the site for his political agenda.
In discussions with various left-leaning insiders, similar apprehensions were prevalent. Common factors driving the decision to leave include Musk’s rollback of misinformation filtering and the idea that the platform increasingly favors Trump’s interests.
However, some argue that the steady decrease in Democratic users is detrimental and that the progressives' self-exile from the platform is counterproductive.
“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,” remarked Maxwell Frost, a 27-year-old congressman from Florida.
Yet, stepping away from X isn't straightforward for many. Dillon himself has found it challenging.
He admitted in a recent post, “Look, the posting habit dies hard,” adding, “One day at a time.”
Many cite the platform's toxicity as a reason for their departure. Critics assert that since Musk acquired the site in 2022, there has been an uptick in hate and vitriol. For those who engage in discussions that can sway public opinion, the environment has become increasingly hostile, making it exceedingly difficult to operate effectively on X.
Environmentalist Bill McKibben, who amassed a following of over 380,000 accounts in his 15 years on the platform, recently announced his departure as well, stating, “I mistrust the owner and his role in our public life, and things have grown sad and harsh.” He recalled that after he recommended listening to John Coltrane, he received a response that read, “eat shit loser.”
This wave of resignations continued with journalist James Fallows, who also left after several years on the platform. He expressed a feeling of disillusionment, stating, “I’m leaving what Musk hath wrought.” New Republic writer Timothy Noah encapsulated the mood by declaring, “If you’re still on Elon Musk’s site you’re part of the problem,” citing Musk’s negative impact on public discourse.
In contrast, some argue for leaving as a proactive measure to diminish Musk’s influence on the platform. With Musk’s considerable wealth and power across numerous industries, critics believe refraining from engagement could weaken his grip on X.
“Moving to Bluesky,” noted Mark Green, a former public advocate of New York City, as he signaled his move away from X. He closed with, “Lots to say and do as we approach the start of the Trump-Musk Oligarchy.”
For non-profit advocacy group Free Press, staying on X had long been a topic of internal debate. Tim Karr, its senior director of strategy and communications, explained that recent shifts in the media landscape prompted the group to step back, considering that using the platform only helps validate its current state.
“The mere fact of posting means that you’re helping them make case for the return of advertisers,” argued Karr, leading to the decision to refrain from further engagement on the platform.
A Democratic Hill staffer, speaking anonymously, dismissed claims that leaving X would have any meaningful impact. “It’s already been legitimized,” they asserted, suggesting that remaining active on the platform might actually be more beneficial than abandoning it.
X maintains that its changing demographics are an improvement, citing research showing a nearly equal partisan split among users. CEO Linda Yaccarino emphasized, “More than any other platform, we represent the ENTIRE country!”
Despite the hostile atmosphere, some Democrats argue for the necessity of remaining on the platform to engage more effectively with a diversifying electorate.
A former Biden administration official lamented the tendency to withdraw. "They’re replicating the same mistake we made. ... Too much of the Biden administration was talking to itself and not the broader country," they stated, suggesting that disengagement leads to electoral disadvantages.
While acknowledging frustrations with Musk’s leadership, Adam Kovacevich, a left-leaning lobbyist, asserted the importance of maintaining connections with voters, emphasizing, “We have to recognize that if we’re only talking to ourselves, as Democrats we’re consigning ourselves to minority party status.”
Others express the necessity of contesting conservative ideologies in their territory. Consultant Kurt Bardella noted, "We have to be willing to take our fight to Republicans’ backyard,” supporting the notion that fostering dialogue in conservative spaces is vital for injecting alternative perspectives.
Some remain conflicted, understanding that while leaving X might seem justified, it could also represent a political miscalculation. An anonymous Democratic communications professional warned, “Leaving X because you don’t like Elon is the kind of purity politics that landed Democrats in this mess to begin with,” while concurrently pointing out that the platform's echo chamber has caused disconnection from the working class.
The diminishing liberal population on X leads to questions about its potential for effective use as its user base evolves.
One source encapsulated this ambivalence with a metaphor from *Lord of the Rings*, saying, “I love Twitter and also hate it … kinda like how Gollum feels about the ring.”As the conversation around X evolves, many left-leaning figures are grappling with the implications of their departures or potential departures. The tension between rejecting an environment they perceive as toxic and the need to engage with broader audiences remains a pivotal dilemma for Democrats and progressives.
Some proponents of staying argue that leaving X may inadvertently empower the very narratives they oppose. These voices emphasize that simply retreating from the platform allows it to become a space dominated by conservative thought leaders and those spreading misinformation. “If we want to influence our culture and politics, we can't ignore where these conversations are happening,” said one digital strategist closely involved in Democratic campaigns.
Moreover, there is a growing recognition that the landscape of social media is rapidly changing, and alternative platforms like Bluesky or Mastodon, while emerging, have not yet captured the vast audience that Twitter once had. For many Democrats, the reality is that while X may have become less hospitable, it still offers unique access to a wide array of potential voters, and abandoning it could mean losing that connection.
The need to advocate for a responsible, constructive discourse on social media is also paramount. Some activists suggest that if more progressive voices remain active on X, they can challenge harmful rhetoric and misinformation directly, ensuring their perspectives are heard amid the more aggressive narratives often pushed by right-wing users.
In a conference call last week, several prominent Democratic strategists discussed strategies for maintaining a presence on X while mitigating the toxicity. “We need to be vigilant about our content, and use our voices to push back against the negative aspects,” noted one participant. They highlighted the importance of creating campaigns that counteract misinformation while also presenting a compelling narrative for progressive values.
The broader implications of this digital landscape are concerning for many. If progressive voices continue to diminish on platforms like X, there is a real risk of retreating into echo chambers that only reinforce existing beliefs rather than challenge them. This could leave the political battleground too heavily skewed in favor of conservative narratives, as warned by some analysts tracking social media engagement trends.
“There is finally an acknowledgment that our presence on platforms like X is crucial not just for outreach but also for shaping the narrative,” shared another strategist. They advocated for more organized responses from Democrats to engage with the user base that remains active there, suggesting that effective counter-narratives could reshape discussions long dominated by the right.
As this debate continues, the tension between individual agency and collective responsibility weighs heavily on the shoulders of many in the Democratic party. Too often, personal frustrations with Musk and the platform seem to clash with the greater goal of reaching undecided or ambivalent voters.
For many figures who still participate on X, the call to action is clear. “If we want to steer the national conversation, we need to stay in the room, no matter how uncomfortable it might be,” emphasized one senior Democratic strategist. This sentiment reflects a growing awareness that positive change, particularly in a polarized political climate, demands engagement and resilience.
As the discussions around X play out within progressive circles, there remains an overarching question: what does it mean to resist the negative elements of a platform while still leveraging its potential for change? The answer might very well define the strategies of Democrats heading into future elections, as the interplay between withdrawal and engagement continues to evolve in the complex digital realm.
In the end, the stakes are high. As social media shapes political landscapes more than ever, the decisions made today by individuals within the Democratic party could resonate long into the future, affecting their ability to connect with voters and reshape the narrative. It is a delicate balance that both sides of the debate will need to navigate carefully in the coming months—an endeavor that will likely demand introspection, strategy, and a willingness to adapt.
Jessica Kline for TROIB News
