Democrats seem to be almost ready to unveil their messaging for the 2018 election cycle. Ever since the disastrous 2016 election, they've been regrouping and trying to figure out a way forward. They did not launch a formal examination of what went wrong last year (unlike Republicans in 2013, there has been no "post-mortem" or "autopsy" document from the Democrats), instead they have focused on tightening up their message to move forward next year. The Washington Post just ran a preview of the Democratic strategizing, and reports that Democrats will be rolling out the whole thing next Monday.

The Post apparently didn't get to see the full document, which likely means the leak was intentional, meant to raise interest in whatever will be unveiled next week. So they couldn't accurately say what will be in it, but they did provide an interesting overview of the direction Democrats intend to head towards:

As important as what's in it is what's not. Democrats jettisoned social and foreign policy issues for this exercise, eschewing the identity politics and box-checking that has plagued Democratic campaigns in the past, most recently Hillary Clinton's. This will be purely an economic message.

They also resisted invitations to steer the party toward the center (as pollster Mark Penn advised) or in a more progressive agenda. This is meant to be a populist manifesto that doesn't conform to the left/right debate but instead aims to align Democrats with ordinary, middle-class Americans fighting powerful special interests.

Titled "A Better Deal: Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Wages," it is expected to have many Democratic staples -- tax increases on the rich, affordable college, infrastructure spending, higher wages, job training, paid family leave and the like -- and a few new ones.

Hashed out over several months by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), DCCC Chairman Ben Ray Luján (N.M.), and Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), Cheri Bustos (Ill.) and David Cicilline (R.I.), it will be outlined Monday with a few sample proposals, to be followed in the coming weeks by more proposals, some to be introduced as legislation and some to be offered as Contract With America-style promises that a Democratic Congress would implement. Schumer told me in December that Democrats would have "five, six sharp-edged [policies] that can be described in five words," although it sounds as if the plan hasn't come out quite so lean.

This is, obviously, just a teaser. And a fairly nebulous teaser at that. Let's break it down, one tease at a time. Obviously, we'll all be able to more accurately assess the platform when it is made public, but since this is all we've got to go on for the moment, let's see what is being said about it.

The first things mentioned are what won't appear. Democrats will "jettison" social issues, foreign policy issues, identity politics, and box-checking, in favor of a "purely economic message." This is probably a good idea, at least for the moment. Democrats may not have the luxury of ignoring foreign policy, though, if some crisis or another crops up in the heat of the election. But then, this will be a foundational document for the party, meaning it can be built on later if additions are necessary. It also will be a document all Democrats can get behind, meaning individual candidates can offer up their own personal stance on issues it does not cover. That's actually a good thing -- building in flexibility for wildly different types of Democratic candidate.

The problem, however, of ignoring all the "box-checking" is that the groups whose boxes will not be checked may be seriously annoyed. The Democratic Party has always been an exercise in cat-herding, so we might hear some yowling as a direct result of being ignored. Bernie Sanders, for instance, in the earliest days of his campaign, tried to run on a purely populist economic message, but got roundly criticized for doing so. Now, individual House and Senate candidates might not face the same level of pressure from all the box-checking groups, but they also might get more local complaints.

I'm hoping that second paragraph was the writer's interpretation rather than directly leaked talking points. First off, let's all avoid the term "populist manifesto," shall we? Manifesto is a loaded word with some seriously negative overtones, so it's best just to avoid it altogether. Not conforming to the left/right debate and fighting for ordinary middle-class Americans certainly sounds like a good thing, but it remains to be seen what it will translate into. You can try to avoid the left/right debate all you want, but the political chattering class is inevitably going to grade it on that scale anyway, whether you want them to or not.

According to the article, the Democratic Party's not going to head in a centrist direction or a progressive direction, but instead in a populist direction. That may not be entirely possible, since any step towards populism is generally a step at least somewhat towards progressives and away from centrists. That's if you define "centrist" as "beholden to Wall Street," which (at this point) seems pretty accurate, at least in the Democratic Party. There are plenty of areas where progressives and populists don't see eye-to-eye, but there are more similarities between their agendas than the centrist agenda of people like (shudder) Mark Penn.

The only solid leak in the entire article is the new subtitles Democrats have now attached to their already-revealed slogan: "A Better Deal." This will now additionally mean: "Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Wages." As slogans go, that's not a bad one. I might have used the simpler "Better Pay" rather than "Better Wages," but that's a minor quibble. All three items -- skills, jobs, wages -- are indeed middle-class work values that are hard to argue with.

There's a fairly large contradiction in the author's take on the Democratic Party, which is revealed in the article's final condescending line, which accuses Democrats of doing "a really good job of keeping [their agenda] under wraps." Contrast that with the list of "many Democratic staples." You can't have it both ways -- either nobody knows what the Democrats stand for, or everybody knows exactly what the Democrats want to do. Pick one or the other.

The list of staples is a good one, though. Once again, they all focus on helping middle-class America and helping people get into the middle-class in the first place. But what will the "few new ones" turn out to be? Again, a tease, since we won't know until Monday. Let's hope they're innovative and wildly popular ideas (such as all the other Democratic staples listed).

In the final paragraph, we learn that even Monday's rollout will be somewhat of a tease itself, as the platform is obviously still a work in progress. "To be followed in the coming weeks by more proposals" seems designed to leave lots of room for later additions, to put it mildly. Or perhaps it is just all part of the rollout campaign strategy, and they've already agreed on what the later proposals will consist of. It's impossible to tell, at this point.

Chuck Schumer's goal seems a worthy one. Think: bumperstickers. Those who scoff at sloganeering and sound bites are the same ones who lose elections with 18-point plans "on our website, that anyone can read." Pithy isn't a bad thing, even for Democrats. Having a song sheet that everyone sings from (using exactly the same notes) is a powerful way to get a core message across that actually reaches and resonates with the public. They'll never take the time to look at your website unless they are drawn in by snappy slogans, to put it another way. Some may find this crass, but it doesn't make it any less true. Five or six sharp-edged talking points "that can be described in five words" is indeed a worthy goal to shoot for.

All around, "A Better Deal: Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Wages" seems like a giant step in the right direction. Democrats may be on the brink of refocusing and rededicating the party to the interests of a lot of voters that have drifted away from them. It is a positive message, it shows what Democrats' core values are, and it could definitely convince voters that the party stands for something, and not just against Donald Trump and the Republican Congress.

Midterm elections are always a referendum on the sitting president. Always. This is so true that members of the "out" party don't even need to make a big deal of it to get elected. The voters already know it, they don't need to be hammered over the head with it. In a year's time, when the midterm campaign really gets rolling, the mountain of unkept Trump promises will be apparent to all. The disappointment will already exist. Trump voters having second thoughts and/or regrets won't need to be reminded of the failures, they'll already know all about them. Democrats offering a better deal to them means they can vote for something positive, to send a message of their disappointment. Chanting "Russia, Russia, Russia!" isn't going to change any Trump voter's mind, because they'll already be disillusioned with Trump (possibly for very different reasons). So even though the Post article was just a peek into the Democrats' new strategy, it certainly seems like Democrats have already learned this lesson. Offer the voters something positive, because everyone likes voting for something new, not just against something that obviously isn't working.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant