Just wanted to start a thread so I did. That’s messaging. Have at it.
I prefer massaging
2 Likes
for starting the thread. IMO, there are really two fundamental questions.
-
What issue sets and messaging get prioritized when “progressives” have the opportunity to set the agenda.
-
How to respond when conservatives try to force you into taking positions on “wedge issues”
Re 1, I’m cool with focusing on economic populism, healthcare, education, etc. I don’t think pocketbook issues are THE most important issue to all possible D voters, but I think they’re important enough to enough people that they’re a pretty good foundation.
2 is where I think the discussion gets more interesting. When Prop 8 is on the ballot in California, do you say nothing in order to stay popular w/ “moderates”? Do you vote in favor of a bathroom bill b/c you know that many of your constituents will instinctively oppose letting little Bobby and Suzy share a locker room, or do you spend time to explain how much it would suck to be a trans person who can’t find a public bathroom to use without worrying about having the cops called on them, and hammer the Republicans for wasting everyone’s time by trying to pass such a narrow law in the first place. When black and brown folks make up something like 90% of all jaywalking tickets in New York City, do you ever point that out when Rs start talking about the successes of “broken window policing”?
1 Like
What I’m taking (and agreeing with) from bored posts are the dems need to be far more cynical about what they press depending on the audience. Yeah it’s fine getting all self righteous and equal rights for all in a SF coffee bar but lay off the ‘we’ll get you a trans bathroom’ in a fork lift factory in Des Moines and make it all about better working conditions and wages. And then when you are in power put the trans bathroom in anyway.
And ignore the gop when they try and make it all about the bathroom. Defending it doesn’t work in that factory. Save it for the coffebar.
1 Like
Who is saying this?
1 Like
So the right move for Dems to make when North Carolina’s Republican legislature passed a law about bathroom use was to ignore it completely?
The trans bathroom issue is one of the silliest examples of bad Dem messaging because it was a reaction to a bad Republican bill but it’s being portrayed as if it’s a major platform plank of all 14 candidates for President.
I think it’s also silly to distance ourselves from unpopular ideas like trans rights because following that logic the Civil Rights movement was a mistake. Here’s a quote from a Gallup poll(PDF warning) from August 15-20th, 1963 about an upcoming rally
60% unfavorable, no dream for you Dr. King.
1 Like
And if you have the conversation in SF, how do you stop Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson or the local Sinclair affiliate from running a story about it in Iowa?
(B/c if you can’t prevent the story from getting nationalized, then you effectively have to tell Cali and NY that they can’t have nice things b/c it makes Awval sad)
Not saying anything new, and I’m not even sure it fits under ‘Messaging’ exactly, but I’ve been thinking about 2016 and the failure of many to adjust tactics in light of it. I think the theory of television viewership is a useful analogue.
Paul L. Klein was an NBC television executive who, influenced by Marshall McLuhan, argued in the 1960s (and in a 1971 essay) that his contemporaries were mistaken to believe that the typical session of television consumption involved viewers tuning in to watch a specific show that had attracted their attention. Rather, Klein argued, viewers typically did not intend to consume a specific TV show; they intended to consume the medium itself - they wanted to watch TV, not to watch a particular TV show. Therefore, he concluded, the most successful broadcast at any given time was not the most attractive, but the Least Objectionable Program - the one likely to give the channel-hopping viewer the fewest reasons to keep turning the dial.
I think the Standard Model Of Liberal Democrat Ideological Centrism - the SMOLDIC theory, where we needs must at all times tack to the centre, where the most votes supposedly lie, is analagous to this. It supposes an electorate that’s absolutely determined to vote - to consume the medium of voting - and which will, therefore, be most efficiently captured by the Least Objectionable Candidate. I also think 2016 has proven that theory to be false. However shitty a candidate Clinton was, however unlikable, however corrupt, even… it’s hard to score her higher than Trump on those features. Maybe likability, but even that seems dubious to me, and his consistently sub-50% approval ratings suggest it’s at least close.
So - and again, I’m aware this is hardly a groundbreaking conclusion - the best prospect for a one-term Trump presidency is not some bland centrist with high name recognition and a record everyone can at least pretend is clean. It’s a bold, brazen candidate with a positive vision that can offer people an actual reason to vote for them - not a reason not to vote for Trump, not a reason to vote against Trump, but a reason to vote for them.
That’s still Sanders and no-one else, imo. We’re deep enough into it - filing deadlines etc - that if it’s Sanders now, it’s Sanders all the way. Which is a grim prospect since, after the heart attack, I don’t think he’s seriously pursuing the nomination. I think he’s hoping to accrue enough delegates to extract policy concessions from the eventual nominee. And I’m having a hard time believing that those concessions will be enough to turn a Least Objectionable Candidate into appointment voting. So, 2020: Outlook Not So Good, says the 8-ball. We may actually A be F.
A little trivia: Klein’s (grand?)daughter is an aggressively online Communist known as Red Kahina, who’s had minor beef with the Chapos (AFAICT she’s had at least minor beef with everyone online left of Joe Lieberman so it’s not that surprising). Small world.
1 Like
This is a hard question and I’m really thinking about it. Honestly I’m probably going to take a break from this topic and get some perspective. I haven’t changed my general opinion about the Dems being trash at messaging, that’s super obvious, I’m not confident at all in my own ability to find my way out of this knot.
I have a couple of people to talk to about that though.
1 Like
Obviously a ridiculous over simplification to make the point that when the gop message to the world ‘oh look the libs care more about - insert whichever inane fluff is Fox’s talking point this week - blah, blah’ we need to be more ‘fuck off’ and hammer home the things which that audience care about rather than risk upsetting all the bleeding hearts in the world by defending the inane fluff. As a party the Dems need to worry less about trying to win voters who are never voting for them and stop being so condescending to others who might. If that means a few racists vote dem so be it. Fuck em, at least this way they won’t get what they want.
As I recall, the GOP’s base has more or less done this. I don’t recall them getting any particular groundswell of support by banging the bathroom wars drum. It may not be a great idea to make trans rights the flagship policy, but I think it’s worse to make pre-emptive concessions. There are such easy and non-woke avenues of pushback available against virtually every talking point that, if they can but actually nut up and fight, imo the Dems should be at worst unafraid, and at best welcoming, of GOP lines of attack on that front.
I mean, I’m in Ohio now, there’s still no statewide law preventing business from firing you if you’re gay, the Dems out here are definitely not banging the drums on LGBQT issues. When was the last time Dems ever talked about this during the primary season?
You don’t. But defending it with them is how it gets on the major stations nightly news programme. Ignore Hannity and Tucker and if the MSM ask you about it ignore that too and hammer home what that audience cares about. This is what the GOP does so successfully and the Dems absolutely suck at.
2 Likes
One problem is that some people think that messaging should be about facts and policy positions when it should be about emotions and narratives.
Centrist Dems are afraid of inflaming passions when we should be willing to play with fire at the risk of burning it all down.
I’ve never felt that I have advocated violence here. What I do advocate is making people care enough that some people are going to be angry and giving them space to feel rage, with the understanding that if you reach a critical mass, you will always have some people willing to act inappropriately.
I see the problem as people wanting messaging to be influenced by the values of the Enlightenment when we live a post-Enlightenment, postmodern world.
The Dems definitely need to find someone who is willing to cut really nasty attack ads for them and run them through Super PAC’s. Hire a real advertising firm and tell them to dig deep and that honesty isn’t the primary objective.
The fact that we ever played nice again after 2004 blows my damn mind. I’m talking the entire list of hard negative tricks that Karl Rove and Roger Stone invented. If they’ve done it once and it worked that’s permission for us to do the same thing.
On Trump that means putting his mob ties and business dealings front and center everywhere people place their eyeballs. We don’t have anything better to spend the billion plus dollars we’re going to raise for 2020.
I have been enraged by many of the posts/opinions on this topic so have been refraining from posting. Not healthy for me or good for the discussion. I have a trans kid, so the idea that I’m supposed to shut up about their rights and safety, or be OK with their rights and safety being “set aside” is very tough to swallow. And being told that my stance is “virtue signalling” really got me going quite a bit in an unhealthy direction. Of course it is our tendency to care more about issues in which we have a personal stake, and of course issues involving our children are going to get us emotional. So I’ve been trying to recognize that.
Part of my issue with the argument that some of these issues should be removed from anti-Trump messaging as part of a larger strategy is: I don’t believe you. I think BLM is the result of terrible treatment of Black people by law enforcement under everybody since forever. If I were Black my response to “quiet down, stay on the down low and we’ll take care of you once we’re in office” would be “fuck you”. I don’t think there’s any evidence that anyone approaching an “establishment” politician is going to do jack shit about really changing things. So when somebody says “your messaging is harming the overall cause”, my response would again be “fuck you”. The other approach, going along to get along, hasn’t helped anywhere close to enough. Or, it’s helped so slowly as to be hard to discern.
But I can understand the strategic idea of working for the better of two evils when the worse is SO MUCH WORSE like now. I despise Biden. But Trump is as bad or worse than Biden in every area in which Biden sucks, plus Trump is also terrible in many other areas as well. I despise Biden but I will crawl through glass to vote for him if it’s him vs Trump.
12 Likes
FFS, let’s not give President Florida Man free advertising like we did last time. Like, do you think “Trump hangs with mobsters and scams people” is gonna do anything other than fire up his base?
1 Like
Yeah man I hear you. And I totally get where you’re coming from with your kid being trans. I hope you realize that I have zero interest in compromising anything of substance. We need to pitch the right choices better, instead of the typical Democrat move where they water down the substance so that it appeals to swing voters better.
I want to change the minds of so called moderates on things the way that Fox News turned right leaners into crazy people. That’s the power of good messaging.
I used to believe that I was too smart for advertising to work on me… as I drank my sugar water and ate junk food. Good messaging really is mind control.
I’m only for shutting up about stuff I don’t have a viable plan to sell. Trans rights is one of those things, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want something done to protect your kid. And there’s a lot of reasons to hope someone figures out how to sell trans issues if the Dems start really working on messaging as a discipline.
So we are clear LFS, I am not advocating shutting up about rights and safety or setting aside agendas that are unpaletable to certain segments of the population. What I am saying is I don’t mind Democrats gaining a few votes by being a bit circumspect at certain times and then listening to those voters whine about not getting what they thought they might when the Dems have power. It’s better than listening to them whine about not getting what they thought they might and blaming it on the do nothing dems or whomever Fox has designated that weeks scapegoat whilst the GOP happily rigs the game because they currently have power.
I’m quietly optimistic that if we can fade a second term here then that’s basically the end of the GOP (in its present form) as a viable entity. And although maybe abyss looking into is generally not a good idea I think its a chance worth taking this time.
1 Like