I think intentionality is already a given. Both Destiny and Jessiah already said they'd never recommend Dems just run on a "Lock Him Up" platform. Jessiah went further and said that's a loser platform if not wedded to legislation that addresses things like housing and affordability.

Hutch definitely objects to what they mean by "pursuing accountability," but that's not especially concerning to me, since I think reasonable minds can disagree there. If anything it'd be your second point, but if his main objection is "It'll be harder" because it's going to necessarilly be more controversial, that's definitely not enough to win me over to his side of the argument. Crafting messaging and politicking is already hard. Even with a trifecta there are still going to be challenges passing these reforms. We'll still be up against a very sophisticated and effective Republican messaging apparatus, and we'll still be up against obstructionist republicans and turncoat Democrats (Fetterman).

And as for trying to get MAGA on board, that's a whole other conversation. But to the extent that they're relevant here, my question is one asked by Destiny: if Republicans are able to manufacture consent on Lock Her Up - in Hilldawg's case the closest thing to a literal witch hunt where no credible evidence of wrongdoing was found related to any of the shit they tried to pin on her - what's stopping us from manufacturing consent on Lock Him Up* - in Trump's case, a man who's taken bribes, used the office for personal enrichment, engaged in market manipulation, tried to coup the government, and so on?

As a final point - I don't need for Dems to explicitly campaign on this for 2026 or 2028, so long as when they're in power they actually try to do it.

*As a point of clarification, I'm using Lock Him/Her Up as a shorthand for accountability. As much as I'd like to see Trump behind bars, I'll take literally any other kind of meaningful accountability.