What the Staples Baddie should teach us about politics in 2026
The old methods don't cut it anymore.
Over the last year, the Democratic Party has been entangled in an internal debate about whether our candidates need to be more moderate or more progressive in order to win.
This argument is being waged on an axis that no longer exists.
Instead of thinking solely about ideology as the deciding factor in elections,1 we need to think about what gets attention that translates into action – and the old guard of the party needs to reexamine its role in this moment.
We cannot fight the political battles of 2026 with the weapons (or leaders) of 1996.
What it means to be a “good candidate” is rapidly changing. The backlash against Trump alone isn’t enough to win, and voters want more than a candidate who feels AI-generated.
People want to feel connection and community – put simply, they want to trust their leaders again. And as I’ve written one million times here: Trust is built on a foundation of authenticity.
Stick with me here, but there is no better model for how to think about this than the story of the Staples Baddie.
If you’re not on TikTok, you may not be familiar with the Staples Baddie. The NYT has a quick backgrounder on her, but I’ll TLDR it for you:
Staples has been steadily closing stores for much of the last decade, as online shopping and declining demand in office supplies hit the industry hard.
In January 2026, Kaeden Rowland, an associate at one of their stores who goes by @blivxx on TikTok, started sharing videos about all the things Staples can do for customers in stores – making mugs, shirts, backpacks, signs, posters, etc.
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Her most viral videos have upwards of 6 million views as she shows off products with genuine enthusiasm and killer nails. The comments are overwhelmingly positive.
Instead of asking her to stop, take her videos down — or even worse, firing her — the Staples corporate account is hyping her up in the comments and putting out public statements of support and encouragement.
The Staples executives understand 2026 in a way that establishment Democrats don’t:
In the age of AI slop, short attention spans, and fragmented media diets, it is nearly impossible to manufacture authentic marketing that actually grabs attention in a way that matters. All you can do is spot it, encourage it, and empower it.
In many ways, it’s not surprising that the old guard of the Democratic Party is missing the boat here.
The old guard cohort — which includes but is not limited to most of House and Senate leadership, many of the leaders within the DNC delegations, some of the donor class, and many of the think tanks, pundits, and operatives arguing for a return to centrism as a way to win elections — simply do not understand that the ways you got attention in 1996, 2006, or even 2016 are not the same as they are in 2026.
It is no longer sufficient to be great at giving a speech or be a killer on the Sunday panel shows (if that ever really mattered at all). Rather, an effective politician today needs to be good at a 30 second TikTok video, a 3 minute cable hit, and a 3 hour podcast interview.
Some of those are skills and tactics, which can be taught or staffed.
But the actual root of being good at consistently showing up across all the various platforms and mediums you need to as a leader is to have something real to say.
You need to know yourself and know your values in such a way that you can hold the same shape regardless of the format.
The substance is what makes the style possible.
The Democratic DC political industrial complex stays stuck on the ideological axis for the same reason a parent presents a toddler with the choice between a red apple and a green one (even when the toddler will ultimately demand an orange instead) -– everyone gets to pretend they’re in control.
To win in 2026, they shouldn’t be. There is no exact equation of words plus policies plus tested TV ads that can guarantee a win –- if anything, over-manufacturing the message will make voters smell the bullshit.
To be clear, I am not arguing that progressives own the path to victory, either. After all, it is not impossible to be more moderate and also good at getting attention. Just look at former Mayor Eric Adams (although tbh, I wouldn’t consider him a model of anything besides how to be cartoonishly corrupt).
But the challenge again comes from the substance: moderation and centrism are not truly ideologies; they are triangulations. (They are also, for the most part, wildly boring. Painting a vision of a country that is just a little bit better simply does not make for good content!)
We need to zoom out. As much as the old guard might like to pretend, voters simply do not make decisions purely on policy positions. They vote based on a mix of who they like, who they feel likes them, and most importantly, who they trust.
If you don’t believe me, believe a centrist think tank. Third Way ran a poll of Democratic Primary voters. Look what they found:
(Their conclusion that therefore candidates must be moderate doesn’t quite follow, but that’s neither here nor there.)
I’ve spent most of the last decade working with thousands of millennial and gen Z candidates who have been on the forefront of defining what the next era of leadership looks like and I’ve spent hundreds of hours thinking about what matters for leaders in this moment.
Our team has helped elect candidates across the left’s ideological spectrum – just last year, on the exact same Election Day, we supported both a DSA-affiliated city council candidate in Atlanta and a former Republican who left the GOP after January 6th and ran as a Democrat to ultimately flip a municipal seat in rural Pennsylvania.
We are tight on values and flexible on policy. More important than that, though, is our emphasis on community roots, genuine communication, and an affirmative vision for what’s to come.
We have seen the future of the Democratic Party in part because we have built it, one county, city, and school board candidate at a time.
So here’s what I can tell you about what’s coming: The backlash against Trump (and the hateful culture – and AI slop – that he embodies) is already underway.
There is an increasing hunger among voters for humanity, community, neighborism, analog experiences, and for what I often jokingly call “millennial optimism — with teeth” or the “Mr. Rogers resistance.”
Voters want kindness paired with the ability to throw a punch — leaders who look like a cinnamon bun but could actually kill you. (Gen Z especially!)
We just saw it in Texas: candidates who can meet the moment with a specific positive vision for what might be possible (that they can credibly deliver on) are the ones breaking out. Mark Cuban called it “PositivityMaxxing” — whatever branding hits the spot for you.
The fight for the future is not a battle between moderate and progressive.
It’s artificial vs authentic.
Anything that screams fake – whether it’s political triangulation, AI-generated ads, or poll tested messages – will lose.
This is scary for the old guard, who could (or thought they could) function as kingmakers. For the rest of us: It is an opportunity.
No one is in charge anymore. Expand your imagination about what might be possible. Consider who the next Staples Baddie of the Democratic Party might be.
Some other stuff I’ve written about the Democratic Party:
I believe millennial optimism (with teeth!) is the future of leadership. If you agree, you’ll love the book I wrote! Pick up a copy in any format you’d like — hardcover, e-book, or audio book (narrated by yours truly) anywhere you get books, including Amazon or Bookshop.org or literally anywhere else. If you have Spotify Premium, you can listen to for free right this very minute.
I do want to clarify: Policy is important for governing!! It matters to have a vision for how you’re going to actually lead. But this fight tends to be framed as if voters are assessing policy positions in a vacuum distinct from who the candidate is as a person. LOLOL.
At the end of the day, isn't this about "right sizing" a candidate for the office? The most recent example being that Mamdani wouldn't win the NJ governors race and Sherrill wouldn't win the NYC mayors' race.
I would argue that Third Way's conclusion to their poll that candidates must be moderate makes sense if you see it in the context of who folks in Third Way are. They think they are the ones relatable and down to earth. They think young people are spoiled brats who only eat avocado toast and who don't vote anyway. They discount the entire grassroots movement as a bunch of hippy boomers and "resistance wine moms." They are arrogant, misogynists who can't fathom a different path forward. In fact, they don't want to move foward, they want to go back to 2008.