You want Democratic messaging? You got it.

[ehrnst]

"I have heard this many times, as you surely have. Democrats are message-less, they're stuck in an idealistic vacuum, if it weren't for its orchestrated barfing over Trumpian abominations there would be no Democratic Party to speak of. In a way, as I wrote last month, all this bewailing chatter is a good thing, since "every Democratic candidate in 2018 will need a message tailored specifically to his or her district or state." To assign A Message to the party nationwide could alienate as many as it attracts.

Still, there is a curiosity whose perpetuation astounds me. Those convinced of the Democratic Party's standing for nothing have evidently failed to do the very easiest of research: Simply Google "Democratic Party," click on the first proffered link — Democrats.org — and then, for Christ's sake, just read the bloody platform. And for those too immensely lazy to do so, I offer an abbreviated version of what one would otherwise find in the party's messaged list of priorities:

Restore Economic Security for the Middle Class
Raise Workers’ Wages
Protect Workers’ Fundamental Rights
Support Working Families
Help More Workers Share in Near-Record Corporate Profits
Expand Access to Affordable Housing and Homeownership
Protect and Expand Social Security
Ensure a Secure and Dignified Retirement
Revitalize Our Nation’s Postal Service
Create Good-Paying Jobs
Build 21st Century Infrastructure
Foster a Manufacturing Renaissance
Create Good-Paying Clean Energy Jobs
Pursue Our Innovation Agenda: Science, Research, [etc.]
Support America’s Small Businesses
Create Jobs for America’s Young People
Fight for Economic Fairness and Against Inequality
Rein in Wall Street and Fix our Financial System
Promote Competition by Stopping Corporate Concentration
Make the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes
Promote Trade That is Fair
Bring Americans Together
Remove Barriers to Opportunities
End Systemic Racism
Close the Racial Wealth Gap
Reform our Criminal Justice System
Fix our Broken Immigration System
Guarantee Civil Rights
Guarantee Women’s Rights
Guarantee Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights
Guarantee Rights for People with Disabilities
Respect Faith and Service
Invest in Rural America
End Poverty and Invest in Communities Left Behind
Build Strong Cities and Metro Areas
Promote Arts and Culture
Honor Indigenous Tribal Nations
Fight for the People of Puerto Rico
Honor the People of the Territories
Protect Voting Rights
Fix Our Campaign Finance System
Restore Our Democracy
Appoint [Sane] Judges
Secure Statehood for Washington, DC
Strengthen Management of Federal Government
Combat Climate Change
Build a Clean Energy Economy
Secure Environmental Justice
Protect Our Public Lands and Waters
Provide Quality and Affordable Education
Make Debt-Free College a Reality
Support Historically Black Colleges
Guarantee Universal Preschool and Good Schools
Ensure the Health and Safety of All Americans
Secure Universal Health Care
Support Community Health Centers
Reduce Prescription Drug Costs
Enable Cutting-Edge Medical Research
Combat Drug and Alcohol Addiction
Treat Mental Health
Support Those Living with Autism and their Families
Secure Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice
Ensure Long-Term Care, Services, and Supports
Protect and Promote Public Health
End Violence Against Women
Prevent Gun Violence
[Provide] Principled Leadership
Support Our Troops and Keep Faith with Our Veterans
Confront Global Threats
Protect Our Values
[Be] A Leader in the World

Now, securing statehood for Washington D.C. may not excite you, and spending taxpayer dollars to treat the diseased mental health of Trumpeteers might dismay you — but by God you cannot deny that rather than an absence of Democratic messaging, there is a veritable superabundance."

http://www.pmcarpenter.com/2017/07/you-want-democratic-messaging-you-got-it.html

[sweetroxie]

1. That's not a message

It's a laundry list. A "message" is succinct and catchy and it packages together the main priorities.

[Achilleaze]

2. "Remember the Maine!" ?

Well, maybe that's not it. Too damn early. Need covfefe.

[OnDoutside]

5. Demfefe ?

[ehrnst]

3. Those are the topics of messaging. And if people can't be bothered to read a very clear list

then deny that there is even a list, then they really aren't our target audience.

Especially if they claim that the platform was "moved to the left" then diss it as saying nothing.

What message do you suggest that incorporates the list?

[betsuni]

14. "Especially if they claim that the platform was 'moved to the left' then diss it as saying nothing."

Yes, thank you. That is stupid.

[SunSeeker]

69. Exactly. nt

[Hekate]

68. +1

[iluvtennis]

111. +1000 nt

[ehrnst]

4. From the platform:

"Democrats believe that cooperation is better than conflict, unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are better than walls."

[brush]

6. I like that, especially the bridges v walls part.

[marylandblue]

7. That's just a bunch of platitudes

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

16. First and foremost, we need LEADERSHIP... preferably with ATTITUDES, not platitudes.

[ehrnst]

23. You mean leadership that thinks our platform is just a bunch of platitudes?

Who do you have in mind?

[ehrnst]

22. Support of social and economic justice for all Americans are just 'platitudes?"

What makes you say that?

[marylandblue]

34. It doesn't say the words "social and economic justice"

Words like "social justice" at least have a meaning. It includes people of good will and excludes the deplorables. But "cooperation is better than conflict," has no real meaning. Nobody will openly disagree with that and doesn't say anything about what you actually want to do or who you want to help.

[ehrnst]

40. Perhaps you missed these items:

End Systemic Racism
Close the Racial Wealth Gap
Reform our Criminal Justice System
Fix our Broken Immigration System
Guarantee Civil Rights
Guarantee Women’s Rights
Guarantee Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights
Guarantee Rights for People with Disabilities
Support Historically Black Colleges
Guarantee Universal Preschool and Good Schools
Ensure the Health and Safety of All Americans
Secure Universal Health Care
Support Community Health Centers
Reduce Prescription Drug Costs
Combat Drug and Alcohol Addiction
Treat Mental Health
Support Those Living with Autism and their Families
Secure Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice

[BlancheSplanchnik]

114. All mission statements sound that way, because

They are trying to encompass a multitude of details in a broad-brush way. The idea is to articulate the values underlying the organization's decisions. That will always sound "touchy-feely".

The *meaning* of the mission statement, for any organization, is explained by their actions.

[classykaren]

10. Great

[Auggie]

27. +1,000,000

[sinkingfeeling]

31. So you think 'Make America Great Again is a message? Doesn''t tell me

anything. Just a gimmick, like a TV ad.

[Squinch]

44. It doesn't tell YOU anything, but it tells the Trump(R) voter a ton of things. It tells him

that his fear that American is being overrun by people who don't look like him is founded. It tells him that someone agrees that it is bad that "his kind" is losing ground. It tells him that someone is willing to do what it takes to prevent that from happening.

It tells him that his bigoted and sexist view of how America should be is, indeed, a great view, and that he, a white guy from rural PA or IN or AL without much experience or education or talent, could once again be placed above all those brown people and women, just like his father was.

That MAGA bullshit packs a lot into it. It's the definition of great Republican messaging. It says it all without having to say anything and it perfectly defines and embraces the perfect Trump(R) voter.

[0rganism]

60. and it fits easily on a hat

we should not underestimate the power of clothing in messaging

[Squinch]

77. You may be making a joke, but I think you are absolutely right. It should fit on a hat. It's not a

policy statement. It's a jab at your emotions. And every time one of those idiots sees another idiot wearing his own bigotry on the other bigot's head, he thinks, "We're the silent majority. We're right. And he looks like a good guy, so it can't REALLY be bigoted and sexist."

[0rganism]

108. no joke there

every time those idiots looked in their closets and saw the maga hats, it was a little reminder of how they felt at the rally and how committed they were to electing Trump

[Squinch]

109. Exactly. THAT'S what we don't do.

[ehrnst]

64. Narrow minds respond to simplistic slogans. (nt)

[hueymahl]

72. And this is exactly why so many think we are elitist

We have a great platform, with plenty of well thought out policies and goals. But our leaders tend to come off like they are better than everyone else. And whether or not you actually say "Narrow minds respond to simplistic slogans," I can guarantee you the condescension is what many voters hear.

[ehrnst]

80. Last I heard, this was Democratic Underground, and not broadcast television.

[Squinch]

76. ALL minds respond to simplistic slogans. So "just do it!"

[ehrnst]

81. Yeah, so "Stronger together" wasn't simple enough? (nt)

[Squinch]

82. Stronger together didn't address anyone's fear. No one is afraid of being less strong together. Or

stronger apart. It didn't go for the jugular in any way.

[ehrnst]

86. What would?

"Hope and change" gives them rage hard-ons after 8 years.

[Squinch]

89. "Take back your power."

[ehrnst]

92. Again - that's what MAGA was about.

How do you address the cultural anxiety of those that believe their power is being taken away by the base of the Democratic party?

[Squinch]

95. I don't really know what you are referring to.

[ehrnst]

119. MAGA is about white people "taking back their power"

Because they feel that they are powerless because of "those others," have taken their privilege.

And so many people who are not white, straight men would laugh at the idea of "taking back" something that hasn't been theirs.

Hope and Change was roundly mocked by the right - not that they are our audience - so that's been used. MAGA was a reaction against "hope and change."

[ehrnst]

125. Hope and Change, Stronger Together

Why don't those work now? They fit that criteria.

[pirateshipdude]

55. You mean rhetoric? A catchy little tune? That is what the people have got to have?

So they do not have to consider a candidate/party beyond a catchy 3 second meme?

Oh, that is sad.

[Squinch]

58. Yes, it is sad, and I took your same position before the election when DUer Recursion said

the same thing. I have since come to realize he was right. Yes. We need a catchy little ditty that, every time OUR voters hear it, it reminds them that Democrats are the ones who will give them what they most want.

[ehrnst]

126. So we need to play to the Dem base. That's a bit more quantifiable.

The most reliable Dem base is black women.

However, it's clearly not what many - particularly on the far left - consider "average Democrat."

"Average" in a marketing sense usually means what the the dominant culture thinks of as reflecting them. And the dominant culture is white straight male.

Sanders certainly messaged to that audience - and it makes sense from a politician representing an overwhelmingly white small population.

But our future isn't with the straight white male. The last gasps of that white male default privilege was clear in the anger that the Democratic party chose the candidate that wasn't the choice of the majority of white males (and the women who draw their power/identity from the men they align with.)

The most reliable base of the Republican is straight white male - which is also the dominant culture. There is no dichotomy or division between the dominant culture and the majority of their party, like there is in the Democratic Party.

I think that is the core of our messaging paradox - combining the large tent of the Democrats while not threatening the twilight of white straight male privilege (which I think we confuse with "average&quot .

The discussions here on DU illustrate this - one side holds that the "universal issues" we need to focus on are those that affect white straight men, and the other challenges this as leaving (or throwing under the bus) out the issues that affect the vast majority of Democrats (and the population at large).

[pirateshipdude]

132. I think this is horrible, though I do not know it being horrible makes me right.

I was having conversation after reading your reply how we now are to reduce all of a campaign and people making a decision on president from a 3 sec ditty.

Pretty soon conversation in electing a President will be, Great. Hope. Great. Hope.

No one will know what Great represents or what Hope represents, but hey, not a lot to have to research or learn or be responsible with a single word for us to decide a national leader.

[Squinch]

134. But I don't think that characterization is entirely correct.

A slogan is just a reminder. It doesn't create an opinion, it just reminds you of one you have already formed and it keeps you loyal to it. If you were never loyal to it, you won't become loyal.

MAGA didn't create any Trump(R) voters. It just rallied the ones who were already amenable to his message. It made them loyal to each other and to the concept of a Trump presidency. It didn't turn you or me into Trumpers even though it is a really genius slogan.

[pirateshipdude]

136. I think some may just be more susceptible to that type gimmick. I am not and never have been.

I could not remember or recall one of these for anything. They are meaningless, be it a product or a president. I have conversation about policy and position and the rest is filler that is irrelevant. Irrelevancy is a waste of time for me. Again, whether I am right or wrong in this is open. This is how I see it.

[LanternWaste]

65. You're confusing message with commercial branding and bumper stickers.

You're confusing message with commercial branding-- the latter easily seen in every toilet paper advertisement on tv, the former seen on the party's platform.

It happens a lot in this culture that too often we believe many bumper-sticker are actual wisdom with an adhesive backing and a great jingle. We choose not to concentrate very well in the U.S., and rely on the simplistic to convey a depth we no longer comprehend.

[Squinch]

78. But I would disagree with you and say you are confusing party policy statement with message.

It's a GREAT policy statement. Our policies are fabulous. I am not being at all facetious when I say that. But we aren't getting the word out. To do that, we need short punches to the emotions.

Yes. We need to commercially brand our great policies into something that just needs a few words for people to identify them as a whole and, more importantly, identify WITH them.

[onetexan]

112. how about "The SANE party"

succint & catchy enough for ya?

[Doitnow]

115. When so much gets neglected, it becomes impossible to make it into a bumper sticker. At least

Dems have many great goals. CAN NOT say the same for reThugs. Someone ought to make a list of the nasty things they think of to do dirt to the American people. The exact opposite of most everything in the above list.

[relayerbob]

116. Yep!

[KingCharlemagne]

127. How about "We are the 99%!"? (Former Occupy Los Angeleno here) - nt

[MarianJack]

8. Statehood for DC AND...

...Puerto Rico, too. In the interest of full disclosure, my wife is Puerto Rican.

Like that'll happen with Republicans/teabaggers in control of government!

PEACE!

[Squinch]

9. I am one of those who often complains about Democratic messaging. All those things

on your list are crucial to the well being of all of us, and the Democrats are the ones fighting for them against the Republicans.

As others have pointed out, though, this is not the message.

An example: Hillary just linked to her, frankly, wonderful health plan in response to a snarky tweet from a Republican who asked, "Where's your plan??" Her plan is really innovative and would solve many of the problems we face. What publicity did that plan get during the campaign? The message certainly never got to the tea baggers who are now complaining because they're scared they'll lose their health plan.

Another example: Trump(R) lied and told rust and coal belt people he'd get their jobs back. Deep down they all do know that their jobs are obsolete, but Trump(R) was able to make them suspend their disbelief. The Democrats, on the other hand, had a fantastic plan for making those areas renewable energy opportunity zones. That would have replaced all the coal and steel jobs and added many more jobs on top of that. Who knew that plan existed? Who, in those areas, was ever told there was a better option for them than suspending disbelief and throwing the dice?

Another example: Every recent Republican administration has trashed the economy. Every recent Democratic administration has turned that around and put us back into prosperity. And yet the Republican party is still considered by many to be the party of fiscal conservativism. What the hell is that? Why is the message not getting out that the Republicans are fiscally insane, and the Democrats are the ones who keep food on our tables?

I know some will respond to this with, "Well the media." That is entirely correct. The media certainly has a hand in this. But the Democrats are just as much to blame. A team of 20 good PR professionals and an orchestrated message would do us a world of good, and I can't figure out why we haven't taken every possible measure to get our message out.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

17. Yes we need a message, but more importantly we need a MESSENGER who is capable of communicating it!

[ehrnst]

21. We have a message. Most people who voted for economic issues voted for HRC.

She got that message out.

[Squinch]

24. I see it differently. For me this isn't only about the person at the top. Rather than needing

"A" messenger, singular, we need to have certain emotionally charged messages that all Democrats slip into conversations whenever they can, and we need to have additional geographically and regionally appropriate messages that all Democrats from those areas push.

It is possible. It is one thing Republicans do well. After an event, when you watch the news shows, it is completely clear that every one of the Republican spokespeople got the same bullet list of points to cover and every one of them covers that list.

It creates a clear and cohesive message and an illusion of control and achievement (for them. For us it would be the truth.) There is also the benefit that if you hear something a certain number of times, you are more likely to believe it is true. If you see nine people saying the same thing, you start to see it as an established fact. We NEVER use that fact. Republican ALWAYS do. That's why they are better at this than we are.

[luvtheGWN]

33. "An orchestrated message"

YES!
Remember how The Daily Show with Jon Stewart would play newsclips of Republicans on cable news saying exactly the same thing? It was as though (and I'm sure this is true) they woke up every morning, switched on their emails and read the "slogan/message of the day and don't say anything else". That's how "death panels" became the talking point during the ACA debate.

And the "message" was always (and still is) short and sweet -- doesn't matter if it's an outright lie, because when you have ALL of them saying it, golly gee it must be true.....

Other than the teavangelicals who will never support the Democratic Party, there may still be plenty of fiscal conservatives who could be convinced that their party IS not, and HAS NOT BEEn fiscally conservative -- if only you had a chorus of Dems pointing that out (in 12 words or less) at every media opportunity.

[Squinch]

35. Exactly. It is the ONE thing we can learn from Republicans, and we better learn it fast.

[ehrnst]

63. Those attracted to the far right demonize "government" and any

mention of "government" into the discussion of economics or fiscal issues means they stop listening and get angry.

They may want pay equity, affordable health care and good schools for themselves, but not others they think "don't deserve it."

All they have to hear is that the government will..... and they are against it. Point out that Red states get more government funding, and they will say, "It's needed there."

[ariadne0614]

11. The first rule of communication is . . .

know your audience. Like it or not, the average American has a notoriously short attention span. The leadership of the Democratic Party has been a miserable failure at recognizing and acting upon this basic fact.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

18. So true.

[ehrnst]

19. And knowing that no one has a universal audience is another rule of communication.

Tell me about the "average American" in terms of political messaging. What do you think the party could communicate to all "average Americans?"

[ariadne0614]

41. I didn't mean to imply

that there is a single one-size-fits-all message for the average American, just that any messages need to be delivered in sound bite/bumper sticker format.

[ehrnst]

46. I think that's the description of one-size-fits all. (nt)

[YCHDT]

56. yeap

[Duppers]

90. Word. 👍

Thank you for stating the obvious.
(Not meant as snarky remark.)

[oasis]

12. Protect Voting Rights

Should be a bumper sticker for every Democrat.

[mopinko]

32. this

fix that, everything else is fine.

[Scarsdale]

13. How about

People first. Elect REPRESENTATIVES, not hired gop operatives.

[Duppers]

91. "People First"

[Squinch]

98. "Take back your power."

[TexasBushwhacker]

103. I like "People first" n/t

[nikibatts]

15. No message gets through to the RW and LW bigots except to trash Obama and Hillary.

[ehrnst]

20. No message gets through to people who think that they deserve a candidate tailored

to their user experience.

[melm00se]

25. not bad but too long, disorganized and not prioritized

Messaging for large organizations are best when they follow this template:

Vision - the purpose and what, specifically, are you trying to accomplish and time frame
Strategy - how will you meet your vision (also provide a time frame)?
Execution - what specific actions will be taken to meet one or more of the strategies?
Metrics - how will you measure success/failure?

Taking some of your list:

Vision: A Leader in the World (not the best wording but I get your point)
Strategy: not much strategy here
Execution: this is the bulk of your list
Metrics: none really listed but that's not too surprising.

[GoCubsGo]

26. That's actually a better reply to the "Democrats don't stand for anything" meme

that has been spewed all over the place lately. I am repeatedly hearing "The only thing the Democrats stand for is opposing Trump. They have nothing else." Which is, of course, complete, unmitigated bullshit. And, I would add "Requiring a course in civics to graduate from high school," so that people start to understand things like why the Democrats are not the reason nothing is getting done in our government right ow.

They also need tag line: Cleaning up after the elephants since 1929.

I can't say that the Dems' messaging is bad, because I haven't been able to hear what it is. And, that the real crux of the issue. What they need is a better way to get their message out. The corporate media sure isn't going to hep them out here. Perhaps it's time for those with lots of money to invest in their own media outlet. And, for god's sake, get some competent people to run it. The last thing we need is another Air America fiasco.

[Squinch]

29. That tag line is great. I'd say, "Cleaning up after corrupt Republicans since 1929."

[Squinch]

28. I don't think you guys are getting the concept of messaging. The list is great. It is true. It is

what we do. But it's not a message.

A popular Republican message is, "Tax and spend liberals." They repeat this so often that flyover country accepts it as gospel. And with that simple phrase, they nullify all of our economic achievements on your list in the minds of the less informed voters. That's great Republican messaging.

Republican message: "You've been suffering under Obamacare" and "Obamacare is a disaster." It never was, but the Republicans managed to get this message into the minds of voters, and those uninformed voters believed it right up until the point that they noticed their insurance going away. That's great Republican messaging.

"Hillary is crooked." Millions of Republicans AND Democrats believe this, though there has been no evidence of it in 30 years of the most invasive scrutiny imaginable. That's great Republican messaging.

"Welfare queens are taking your money." Well, no, Republicans are taking your money, but try and convince a Republican voter of that. That's great Republican messaging.

A message is not policy. The message is something that bypasses thought and appeals to emotion. It makes a voter BELIEVE that you are doing the things you are doing. (Or in the Republicans' case it makes them believe the R's are doing things that the R's AREN'T doing.) And without good messaging, it doesn't matter how great our policies are, because that greatness will never get into the minds of the uninformed voter whose vote, unfortunately, is one we need.

[marylandblue]

36. +1,000,000

[snpsmom]

38. YES!!! A million times, yes. n/t

[ehrnst]

47. Republicans fall in line - that's why simplistic black/white messaging works for them.

Granted, we have those on the left, too.

It seems that any time we try to reach out more than just left wing Democrats, cries of "CORPORATIST REPUBLICAN LITE!!111!!!" go up.

They only need to reach a mindset that reacts way more strongly to "those people are what's wrong" than an inclusive message based in fact.

So tell me - what messaging do you propose?

[Squinch]

51. Well, help me with it. I think we could come up with a concept, which of course advertising people

could word well. But let's break down "MAGA," which is really genius Republican messaging, and see if we can come up with something like it for Democrats. I am truly just thinking this out as I write it, so don't be too critical of me.

MAGA appeals primarily to the central fear of the Trump(R) voter, which is that he no longer has dominion over other people (women and POCs) in American society. It tells him that can be changed and that Trump(R) would do what it takes to make him the alpha dog again. Which of course implies that he would bring those women and brown people appropriately back under the thumb. THAT is Trump's central appeal.

So. Let's do the same: What is the central deep fear of a voter we would like to woo?

ETA: I had a long and complicated description of what I suspect is that fear, but I think I am overthinking it. I think the central fear of the voter we want to woo is that we are going to be subjugated, socially and economically, by a corrupt faction run by people who don't see us as human. And the corruption of that faction is such that we will never get the reins back to counter their corruption, therefore we are hopeless in the face of it.

That's my fear. Does that sound right to you as the underlying and possibly unexamined fear of the average voter we would like to woo?

If it doesn't, what do you feel is the central fear of our target voter? Once we figure that out, I think we could come up with a succinct message (this is where the great PR professionals come in) that says, "we understand your fear, you are right to have that fear, and we Democrats are the way out of this situation that you fear." The message has to bypass the head and go straight for the emotional response.

Then we do the same for regions. We figure out what the central fear of the people in the regions is, and we tell them succinctly, in a phrase that bypasses the head and goes to the emotions, that we have the solution to that fear.

But let's you and me try this and see how far we get. Do you think that I am on the right track about what is the central fear of a voter we want to win? If I'm not, what do you think it is?

[ehrnst]

61. I think that getting out in front of language is the first step

And indeed, that tripped us up in the "partial birth abortion" debate. We should never have used that term outside "non-existent procedure described as 'partial birth abortion."

However, if you use the term "legally enforced childbearing" in a discussion with an anti-choicer, they will simply stonewall and say, "it's not forced if she consented to spread her legs," because their dogma says that consent to sex is consent to childbearing. Dogmatic thinking doesn't respond to reason. The slogan, "Who decides?" was short and to the point, but didn't get through dogma.


Yes, we do need to call regulations "protections" and spending on infrastructure "investing," but as we have seen hard conservatives will NOT listen to that. It helps people who are teetering between varying issues to make the connection, and helps people who are talking to family members, but you cannot appeal to someone whose brain literally is more wired to flight or fight than to consideration of various sides of an issue, with slogans or words.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-conservative-believe-false-threats-20170202-story.html

Our entertainment world could step up. I think that the Cosby Show laid the groundwork for the white acceptance of a high power black family like the Obamas, and that Will and Grace did more to get our population less afraid of gays, and toward marriage equality than all the marches or "Hate is Not a Family Value" bumper stickers combined.

I also know that the power of a single narrative - to an extent. It used to be if someone shared a story about her child's medical bills, people would be moved to tears. Now they are bombarded with hate from the basement dwellers of the web.

I understand that the most effective way to thaw out the paralyzing fear that anti-vaxxers have is to tell the personal stories of families whose infants suffered horribly from being exposed to preventable diseases. But now there are more online echo chambers for them to hide from reality.

I have also seen this sort of knee jerk response on the far left - the tribal thinking, the accusation of anyone who dare dissent even one word from the dogma is "corporatist!!"

There are so many things that set off the fear response in voters that it is a wicked problem trying to allay it.

Thoughts?

[Squinch]

75. I got it! If I were in charge, our message would be, "TAKE BACK YOUR POWER."

I just had to go to a meeting an hour and a half away so I had 3 hours in the car. Your question really stuck in my head. SO that is my answer.

And there could be lots of corollaries: take back the power of your vote. Take back the power of the truth. Take back the power of your sanity. Take back the power of your health. Take back power over your body. Take back the power of America against foreign interference.

It says without saying it that someone took away your power. Which is basically the distilled version of the fear I described above. It allays the feelings of overwhelm and helplessness because it describes the act of overcoming them. It says Republicans suck and Democrats solve the problems they create without saying it.

The more I thought about it, the more I liked it.

[ehrnst]

83. I think many believe that their power has been taken away by

the base of the Democratic party. Cultural anxiety and all.

That would have to be addressed.

[Squinch]

57. PS. Yes, Republicans fall in line, but we are all susceptible to absorbing information that is

repeated to us over and over again. If you are a certain age, and I say, "I'd like to teach the world to sing," you'd know the next line is "in perfect harmony."

None of us did anything to learn about Coke, but we know their very old song, and we know it's about Coke.

[mcar]

30. Statehood for DC would secure Dem majority in Senate

And help immensely with the Electoral College. Just an explanation for why it's on this very good list.

[marylandblue]

37. Yes but it's not a message for anyone outside DC

Democrats are already for it and Republicans are already against it. It doesn't say why anyone outside DC should want to put more Democrats in Congress.

[jayschool2013]

39. "Freedom"

Unless you can throw the word "freedom" into every single one of those phrases, Republicans can't hear you.

[Squinch]

45. LOL. I think you took a wrong turn at JPR. You seem to be lost.

[ehrnst]

48. Plan to bash Democrats a lot here? (nt)

[vi5]

43. So our message seems to be...

"Go to a website and read a long list of things we stand for. If you can't be bothered or don't have time to do that then fuck you, you're too stupid."

Seems like a winner to me.

[ehrnst]

49. No - that's the message of the blogger to those who say Dems don't have a message.

Is that clearer?

[Me.]

50. It Seems

Nothing anyone says will be sufficient for those who insist the Dems don't have a platform or stand for anything. The fingers are in the ears and will remain there all through another vote for the wrong candidate.

[vi5]

59. But it's in line with what I see on here a lot.....

....There is a difference between having positions, and having a message. We have many positions. We have many policies. But we don't have a message.

[ehrnst]

88. Don't have a message for whom? (nt)

[BainsBane]

107. When has a party ever had a single message?

The only example I can think of is the GOP right after it formed around the issue of Free Soil.

Politicians come up for slogans for campaigns, but I am not aware of parties doing that. Parties are made up of millions of people with different interests. The idea of distilling that into one statement isn't going to work, and the result would inevitably be exclusionary.

Sanders is a different matter. He is one man speaking to a target, fairly homogeneous audience. To insist of on reshaping the party around that is tantamount to saying, I want a party that speaks to me but NOT to the many more millions of Americans whose lives and concerns differ from my own.

[IronLionZion]

74. If average voters don't know what our message is

than does any of this matter?

[ehrnst]

87. Define "average voters" please. (nt)

[Squinch]

96. You're working kind of hard not to hear anyone who answers you.

[ehrnst]

124. Give me a link to where it has been defined.

Seriously, I haven't seen it defined.

The closest I've heard is "a sampling of congressional districts" with no mention of which districts, and what the sampling involves.

[virtualobserver]

52. unfortunately that IS the message.....apparently THAT is what we stand for

[ehrnst]

62. No - that's the message of the blogger to those who say Dems don't have a message.(nt)

[aidbo]

54. Reminds me of this..

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”


― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[BainsBane]

105. You want a slogan

which is fine. And campaigns do come up with them. But that isn't the same as what a party stands for. The problem comes when people insist slogan is all that matters and they reject policy and substance. You can insist you should not have to inform yourself on policy or issues, which is your prerogative. But those who do care about more than media spin must look at policy specifics, if they care at all about what their elected representatives seek to do in office.
The fact is detailed policy says a lot more about what a party and its elected representatives stand for than bumper-sticker slogans. Some politicians are adept at simple messaging, but they offer little of substance beyond that. Slogans are advertising. Policy takes serious thought and hard work. Slogans are about selling a product. Policy is about governing.

[pirateshipdude]

53. Kerry reduced his to 20 minutes, four points. And still, news said he had no message.

We hear repeatedly Democrats have no message. Thank-you for displaying the obvious.

[Alice11111]

70. I hear it all of the time ...they are really talking marketing.

The left & right says we didn't have a message.
Dems are better at reality and governing, but the Rebubs are better at marketing. The are not constrained by facts, honesty, shame or propaganda.

We need to get better at pitching our messages. Dems also need to listen to their base. There truly was an arrogance of not listening to the home court, in many places. Thank you for outlining the messages here.

[pirateshipdude]

71. I think the base was clear the supported our base, which would reinforce that the Democratic

Party knows its base well.

[Squinch]

79. Yes. We ARE talking marketing. Marketing is how you get your message out in the modern world.

Just hoping everyone will see how fab we are is not doing it.

[Alice11111]

137. Yeah, we act as though people will be persuaded by facts.

[Squinch]

139. They won't be persuaded by facts if they never hear the facts.

[ehrnst]

84. Marketing costs money. And raising money is CORRUPT!!!

in increments over $27, (except if it's from the same person giving it dozens of times, apparently...) according to the self-described moral purists...

[JHan]

117. Hahahah! take all the plusses ++++++++++++++++

[betsuni]

118. Yup! Not only is raising money for things corrupt, it's establishment-status-quo.

It's not fair to ask ordinary people to constantly give money ($27 at a time) so candidates can pay for staff, rent, materials, etc. It's like a tax. Why not go after people with lots of money who won't miss it a bit? Oh right, that magically turns you into a mindless puppet of corruption.

[Alice11111]

138. You can't fight nukes and automatic weapons by throwing

Rocks, even though it is a much less damaging way to fight, and most of us support gun control.

[Hekate]

66. Kick-ass

[niyad]

67. k and r and bookmarking for a very handy list

[IronLionZion]

73. Ask average voters in the districts what Democrats stand for

and see if they mention any of this.

[ehrnst]

85. Define "average voters in the districts," please. (nt)

[IronLionZion]

93. That's why we lost the election

Voter: a person who votes or has the right to vote at an election.

For average, it can be a random sampling of registered voters in a congressional district. Not DUers.

[ehrnst]

94. So define the characteristics of "the person who votes or has the right to vote at an election."

You didn't answer that...

If it's so head smackingly simple, you should be able to whip out an answer, right?

[Squinch]

97. You're really determined to prove that there are no answers, aren't you?

[ehrnst]

121. I just want someone to define "average American voter" since

it's been thrown out there as the solution to the messaging question.

I mean, have you ever tried to describe the "average American?"

[Squinch]

122. This began as an interesting discussion. You've turned it into something else. Have a nice day.

[ehrnst]

123. I've drilled down to the crux - that it's not as simple as some seem to think it is.

And by extension, the accusation the Democratic party is too "clueless" or "corrupt" to speak to this apparently clearly defined population doesn't stand up.

If people are defensive at being asked to examine this accusation closely, I don't think I'm the one who turned this discussion into something else.

[Squinch]

135. You haven't drilled down to anything. You are, now, simply discounting anything that doesn't

forward your thesis and discounting the ideas of all other commenters on ridiculous bases.

There is, I think, nothing more to gain here from conversation with you.

[IronLionZion]

101. Here you go

If you don't know who voters are, then they will vote for someone else.

[ehrnst]

120. Argument by meme.

I'll narrow the question, in your "random sampling of registered voters in a congressional district" - which congressional district, and what are you using to define them - race? gender? income? family size?

How do you average those?

[IronLionZion]

128. Here's the precise quantitative breakdown you need to answer your question

Random - made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision

[ehrnst]

129. You'll have to sample way more than corgis

Again - How big a sample, and on what do you average - income, race, age, family size, party affiliation, length of time in that district? All of the above?

Any idea what this "average American voter" would look like?

Because I would not be able to tell people what constitutes an "avarage American" let alone average American Voter.

If it's easy to define - why hasn't it been done?

[IronLionZion]

130. Here's how Pew does it

http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/sampling/

Polling firms have methods of choosing their samples. I'm not a pollster.

This is the sort of sample size I would prefer to deal with. People are the worst.

[ehrnst]

131. I know very well how Pew samples

And I don't see an "average U.S. voter" listed among their polls.

The reason why - there are various types of American voters - very different from each other in significant ways, in a way that makes it impossible to generalize. It would be incredibly difficult to even narrow it down to an "average woman voter in America."

That's my point.

[IronLionZion]

133. That's why we lost elections

because of nonsense like this instead of making sure more voters in more districts know what our party and candidates stand for. Why let the Republicans tell them what we stand for? We should control the message and the meaning of it.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

99. And that is why we need to get the word out.

Time for PSA's, pro Dem editorials talking about these issues, mailers, even people sitting in front of public libraries with fliers.
Time to get this message out and do it in an all out assault! Coming from the top and grass roots all at the same time.

[betsuni]

100. I get angry every time I see Dems accused of being only against Trump, having no message.

Just saw something on the news of a poll, people saying that they think Democrats are only against Republicans. What have Republicans been the last eight years -- the party of NO, all they were was against Obama. WTF. I guess they didn't notice that? I guess Fox News is telling them that Dems don't stand for anything. And in the next election people will be voting against Republicans, against Republican policies. That's the way it works. Argh.

[Progressive dog]

102. The Republican messages are

"repeal and replace Obamacare", "tax reform", and others with no specifics. If they gave specifics, no one would vote for them. Repeal and replace actually means cut taxes for the very wealthy no matter who suffers. Tax reform means tax cuts for the very wealthy and call it reform.
But, even with the list in your post, we'll continue to hear from those who claim we have no message. Democrats have lots of messages, the complainers just don't like them.

[Warren DeMontague]

104. Wow, 30 bullet points and not a single fucking one addressing cannabis legalization.

Something tells me this wasnt written by a Democrat west of the rockies.

[gtar100]

106. Thank you for making it abundantly clear. n/t

[bearsfootball516]

110. Hmmm

I believe a lot of the fear surrounding Democrat voters right now has to do with the loss of rights, which leads to an overall loss of freedom. There also has to be a push to get voters to the polls, especially the minority vote How about something like...

America, with Liberty and Justice, for all

[Hamlette]

113. It won't fit on a baseball cap!

Last edited Mon Jul 17, 2017, 11:09 PM - Edit history (1)