Lakoff - How Obama is missing the boat

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

This is not me being a concern troll. This is George Lakoff pointing out that in the last two weeks, Obama's campaign has morphed into a Gore/Kerry/HRC style and what needs to be done about it. A compelling read.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/dont-think-of-a-maverick_b_125850.html

[depakid]

1. Take home message:

The job for the Obama campaign is to reverse the present mindset that the Republicans have constructed, to reveal the conservatives as elitist Washington insiders who cynically manipulate them, to get conservative populists to identify with Obama and Biden on the basis of values and character, and to have them see realities through Obama's leadership capacities. Not an easy job. But it's the real job.

[ej510]

2. Obama should hire Lakoff.

[depakid]

3. My thoughts for years have been that all of the leading Dems ought to be sent to summer camps

where they're taught these basic principles by various social scientists, and then PRACTICE using them.

If they graduate, they get a certificate that counts toward their promotion to key committies and leadership positions!

(only speaking half in jest there).

[goodgd_yall]

4. I haven't finished the whole article

But I think this observation is spot on:



"But post-Palin, the Obama-Biden campaign seems to have become the Gore-Kerry-Hillary campaign. They are running on 18th Century theory of Enlightenment reason: If you just tell people the facts, they will follow their self-interest and reason to the right conclusion. What contemporary cognitive scientists have discovered...and what Republican marketers have known for decades, is that the Enlightenment theory of reason doesn't describe how people actually work. People think primarily in terms of cultural narratives, stereotypes, frames, and metaphors...."


But the other part of this is the MSM, which really plays an overly important role in elections. They select what to report and how to report it. The Democrats can do all the right things, and if the MSM is controlling what the American people should pay attention to, it's still not going to be a successful strategy. This is based on the belief that the MSM is not the objective institution it claims to be. Is the overarching goal to get a Republican elected every 4 years? I don't know if I can go that far. But maybe they're afraid of the "liberal-bias" charge and losing in the ratings and this is what influences their decisions day to day.

[ProSense]

7. This stuff is such BS

What the hell do Gore, Kerry and Hillary campaigns have to do with each other?

First, Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 votes, the SCOTUS selection has nothing to do with the other two campaigns.

Second, Kerry got won the primary and got 8 million more votes than Gore.

Third, Hillary ran a primary campaign against another Democrat. She has never ran a general election presidential campaign.

[politicasista]

28. It is n/t

[Emillereid]

5. Send this to the Obama campaign - I sent it yesterday, but I think if they were

flooded with the article perhaps someone there will get it. They should hire Lakoff.

[President_Obama]

6. Lakoff can Fuck Off

I'm really getting sick of people saying "Oh Noesss!! he's just like Kerry!"

[ProSense]

8. It's really beyond idiotic. n/t

[depakid]

10. The idiots are those who throw social scientists- or anyone else who has critical analysis

or doesn't follow whatever the polyanna script of the day is under the bus.

At this point, where the evidence of how the theory and the practice works is pretty well incontrovertible- it really is beyond idiotic. It's juvenile and pathetic.

[ProSense]

15. No, the idiots are the ones

comparing apples to oranges

[depakid]

22. Try reading people like Lakoff and Westen, and the research in them

and then you can apply the prinicples to a whole host of situations- and observe for yourself how they work- what works or what doesn't.

This stuff goes well beyond politics, btw.

[politicasista]

24. Exactly n/t

[rniel]

9. Same

I fall into the same thinking myself sometimes. I think I can convince people to vote for Obama by throwing a bunch of facts at them and assuming they will see the light that way. Then I sit there red faced as it doesn't seem to work. I think my facts need to be better communicated and I try that but again it doesn't work. Seems to me this is how Obama has slipped into this mode of thinking in the last few weeks.

[mattclearing]

11. This is a smart article. Lakoff is always on point. n/t

[treestar]

12. Baloney

then we should not have won Congress in 2006

This is practically falling into the repuke frame. They say it is about personalities, so it is. Not so.

We might have lost 2004 just because Chimpy was the incumbent, too. We don't really know why Chimpy won - whether it was this or that ad or this or that fact. We can't even prove the Swiftboating had anything to do with it.

If we really believe this, we've given up on the rationality of the voters - what kind of society will we have if we just give in to irrational people?

[cameozalaznick]

13. Sorry, but Kerry's probelm in 2004 was that

1 - he let it be close enough to steal by

2 - Not having a theme to his campaign. Instead of a overarching vision, he had a laundry list. The campaign even had an acronym for it -- JHOS. Jobs, Health Care, Something I can't even remember and Security.

Here's the takeaway from the Lakoff article which everyone on this board and everyone in politics needs to get

The reason voters don't vote on issues is because issues change.

Think about what was oh so important one year ago. Iraq. But that's no longer the number one issue. It's now the economy. Since voters know that issues change, they vote on character, temperment, judgment and yes, personality.

We may wish it weren't so. We may beat our chests and decry the unfairness of it all. We may agonize about how, if only people were smarter. We may be urged to insult those who vote against their interests because "they like the guy." But then we lose. Deal with it.

And make it a point to educate every democrat you know.

[treestar]

16. It sort of sounds like giving in to them

and there could be many reasons * won that weren't Kerry's fault.

We don't want to just say, when Obama wins, that it was just McCant's fault for running a bad campaign. We want it to be because the people wanted Obama.

He has to talk about issues so people know he is smart and can handle things they can't. To overcome the inexperience problem.

[cameozalaznick]

25. It's not giving in. It's called Winning

Sure 20 percent was not Karry's fault. But 80 percent was that Kerry had no MESSAGE. A laundry list is not a message. Obama has a message of hope and change. He must not deviate from that and get sidetracked into stupid arguments over lipstick. I actually think the new spots are a good start.

[politicasista]

26. The media wouldn't let those 80 percent hear him

And Democrats didn't do much to help get his message out.

Why Democrats keep repeating and believing media lies/spin is mind boggling. Anyone that thinks that Kerry had no message either wasn't paying attention, didn't bother to listen to what the Democratic nominee had to say or get to know the truth about Kerry, his ideas, message or vision for the future. I don't know why you are letting the media and Democratic surrogates off the hook. Obama's message is getting out because he has surrogates and the media is covering it. Plus, many of Kerry's people went to work for Obama. Obama is doing fine, but he has support, unlike Kerry and Gore.

Amazing that Democarts continue to validate GOP, media spin. Sad.

[politicasista]

23. Yep. Let's make ONLY Kerry the scapegoat

rather than a Democratic party that should have had his back when it mattered. Amazing people complain about the media and everything else, yet buy into anything that is fabricated. Your blame should be at the surrogates that were M.I.A. and an inept DNC Chairman that didn't bother to secure the vote. Obama has Dems standing with him. Something that Gore and Kerry did not have, but it's apples and oranges to many here I guess.

[Democat]

30. Kerry shouldn't have ran for president then!

We should accept no excuses from candidates who lose. Because of Kerry's failure, there are two new right wing supreme court justices. I feel bad for Kerry as a person, but politics is more important than one person's feelings. Kerry decided to run, we trusted him, he lost. He was not willing to do what was needed to win. His strategy was a loser.

No excuses. If any candidate is not willing to do whatever it takes to win, then they should step out of the race before it starts.

Obama had better be willing to hurt some people's feeling and get dirty and mean if he wants to win this.

Losing is not an option.

[frazzled]

14. Lakoff needs to take a framing lesson from Bay Buchanan

After Palin's hair-raisingly bad series of interview clips on foreign policy yesterday, Bay Buchanan was queried repeatedly on how she did. "Brilliant!" She was asked about the misstatements and lies: "No problem! It's all true!" She was asked what Palin could have done better: "Not a thing! It was perfect!"

That is what wins elections: an entire party that stands behind you and pretends you have beautiful clothes on when you are butt naked. Who claim their poop smells like roses.

Our side? The Paul Begalas, George Lakoffs, James Carvilles and countless others who only emphasize what our candidates (Gore, Kerry, now Obama) are doing wrong. If they're doing things wrong, the public gets the idea they will govern wrong. The Republicans always give the public the idea that their candidates can do NO wrong.

We will win when these jokers stop thinking their own ideas are so great and start acting like Bay Buchanan. No more advice. Only praise.

[amborin]

18. Rove follows Lakoff to a "t" too bad we just

don't get it

and as usual, some dems hate the messenger bearing great advice

[BumRushDaShow]

19. You are right. Repukes lockstep behind their candidates no matter what. n/t

[ContinentalOp]

21. Woah, I agreed with you up to the point where you lumped Lakoff in with Carville and Begala.

:wtf:

[amborin]

17. yes, we need Lakoff!!!!!!!!

[BzaDem]

20. I wonder how many decades of losing Presidential elections it will take for Democrats to see.

The lack of ability to come to grips with the irrationality of voters is quite frustrating.

[mzmolly]

27. Very insightful. I am far less confused than I have been about this election. V.A.C.T.I =

A new acronym based upon what Lakeoff says studies indicate we as a nation, vote on: VALUES,

The Moral: Obama needs to be Obama again, the inspiring figure who gives us hope, not the dull policy wonk. He underestimated McCain's debating abilities, and needs to prep both externally by giving the press new questions to ask, and internally, by being precise and making his values clear. And he has to remember that voters vote on the basis of values, authenticity, communication, trust, and identity.

So according to Lakoff, this campaign is NOT about the issues, it's about framing our values.

[depakid]

29. It's about setting frames over time

and being consistent.

Standing up, every now and again to or for what may not at the time be considered expedient or popular.

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. thank you. RECOMMENDED!! An excellent, insightful and interesting article!