>>But yeah for others, I just think we're too afraid to go "there".
I think the basic underappreciated fact here is that the underlying right-left media asymmetry produces a mistaken self-perception by Democrats that whenever they "go there", it rarely yields the results they want, so why bother?
To wit, Fox News and its successors are unconstrained by any commitment to basic journalistic and editorial integrity. It's a political operation from top to bottom. This allows for a remarkable unity of purpose and action among their politicians. When a headline story comes across Fox News, every elected Republican receives the information that day, and can pretty straightforwardly decide on their individual course of action in response, and then they know exactly where to go to publicize that response. They don't have to all agree on those responses, but the straightforwardness, speed, and centralized, open platform allow the entire party to signal its opinions, gauge public opinion, and then iterate accordingly within the space of minutes, days, or weeks. When all's said and done, even if the Fox News headline is based on a complete, provable lie, some not-insignificant minority of the party faithful will believe that lie forever.
This shit doesn't happen on the Democratic side. When a big op-ed gets published in the NYT, the first thing that happens is that Slate, the Atlantic, Vox, and a number of other big-name publications all get to argue about it. The Twitterverse and academia get their say, too. A Democratic politician then has to weigh dozens of different takes, decide on their own personal take -- remember, they're expected to have PRINCIPLED takes, not just base them on any old crass political consideration -- and THEN decide whether to actually publish that take. Because SOMEONE out there will disagree deeply, and because those someones are usually pretty well-educated and informed liberals, that disagreement will be pretty well-grounded and well-argued, which means that internal backlashes genuinely hurt party cohesion. If and when they publicize their opinion, there are dozens of venues to do so in, and even the biggest, most centralized ones like PSA barely reach a plurality of the Democratic faithful, let alone swing voters etc. To the extent that the base ever comes away with a belief about the news story in question, those beliefs can vary wildly and will be seeds for future disagreements.
The net effect is the asymmetry that whenever Democrats "go there", most efforts fizzle, but when Republicans do, there's a much better chance of it going viral and turning into yet another brainworm.
Is a unity of purpose easier to maintain because Fox News is basically it for conservative media? We do have Newsmax, OAN and the other small media operations in this area, but none have come close to the reach of Fox News. The left and center left have so many options for political media. We have cable outfits, (CNN, MSNBC), national media (ABC, NBC and CBS), dozens of magazines, newspapers that all often espouse liberal behavior. With that many talking heads, it is impossible to have everyone on the same page like you would see at Fox News. That's why when Fox News claims that they are the most popular cable news channel, it frustrates me to no end, despite being accurate. Of course Fox News is the most popular cable news channel, thats the only place to go for that sort of content.
It was Gingrich who trained the Republicans to stick with unified messaging. The truth or accuracy of the message was never important. The Republican base has learned to parrot the talking points. It's very fascistic but effective.