Some good ideas…
And some bad ones.
Some of what you’re proposing might have been a little facetious so I won’t rebut them individually, but I agree with you that the Democrats need a hard pivot back to “You aren’t rich? We are for you.”
I’ve been wondering why they aren’t more pro-labor (I.e., using the party communication apparatus in support of workers trying to unionize); perhaps there’s a good reason for that (doubt, perhaps, that a new union member in 2024 votes Dem), but that’s kind of the re-orientation they need to make.
There was a NY Times post election op-ed that made the case that Kamala was too cosy with the wealthy to attack them (the piece sort of blamed her brother in law who is an exec at Uber). From a messaging standpoint that needs to change, but it also needs to permeate down to the local level so that the party is recruiting candidates more like Jon Tester and less like your boy Talarico (not that Talarico is bad rep, but he’s basically been a politician since he was a UT student).
Was this a humble brag? Are you afraid of alienating the voters making $400k-$999k? Your belief is what is dooming the party, not just in economic issues but the social issues animating that particular group.
Bringing it back to @Snake Diggity’s ideas, there is a need for a radical revisioning of the party and if that means ejecting some of the winners in the 21st century economy then so be it. The plan needs to start with “what positions are capable of building a durable majority?” and then proceeding from that so we can break the doom loop in which every election is a change election.