Democratic Messaging

[Pototan]

If I have one criticism of the leadership of my Democratic party, it's the cerebral and timid approach to messaging.

I will give just one example today. Ron DeSantis.

The phrase for his policy proposals which stand against people of color, immigrants, the gay community and religion should be coined very simply as "The Morality Police".

coin the phrase and hang it on that would be dictator. Make this phrase associated with the oppressive regime in Iran, also associated with Ron the Con.

Well, anyway, that's my opinion.

[HUAJIAO]

1. Good idea. Hang it on all repubs.

[live love laugh]

2. Do MAGATs even know what morality means? And they love police.

The audience must be considered first imho.

[Pototan]

4. Please keep in mind that elections are won on the margins

We don't need to convince those of us who understand.

We can't convince the completely brain washed Nazis

The "persuadables" are the 8% in the middle. The voters who change from election to election and hate extremes. Who pay attention but don't make up their minds to just a few weeks before elections.

These voters are descent people who vote more on emotion and less on a studied evaluation of policy.

Morality Police is easy to understand and hits the right emotional button, in my opinion.

[Elessar Zappa]

6. True.

It’s not about convincing the maga idiots.

[Hekate]

3. Yeah, that Hakeem Jeffries is a real schlub. And Joe Biden, whoo! Lame-o! Don't even get me started

…on how Nancy Pelosi behaved during the insurrection!



Good grief.

[question everything]

5. Oh, come on. Let the poster express his/her opinion, Why belittle them?

[Hekate]

12. The poster has a lot of company in hand-wringing just lately. I'm expressing my opinion that...

… the House Dems were fan-tas-tic this past week and the months prior: coherent messaging, cohesive behavior, honorable motives.

From the GQP we’ve got a circus of poo-flinging monkeys and the organ-grinder has lost control.

[brush]

14. Don't you recognize a low-post troll bashing Dems...

when you see one? It can't be more obvious.

[Pototan]

22. You're 100% wrong

I am a lifelong Democrat and have done more to elect real Democrats than almost anyone you would ever meet.

I was for Biden before he announced. I helped nominate and elect Katherine Clark in the 5th in Mass. I appeared in a recent TV commercial for Maura Healy for Gov. I have been a Mass. Dem Delegate for every convention for 20 years. I have contributed thousands to Dem candidates throughout the country.

I have knocked on doors in New Hampshire for Obama, Clinton and Biden.

You don't know me and the number of posts should be irrelevant.

Let's just say that I am offended by your ill-informed accusation and leave it at that.

[brush]

38. And I'm offended by the Dem bashing.

Bash the insurrectionist republicans why don't you?

We just had the most successful first two years of an adim since FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society, not to mention turning back the expected republican red tide and we get Dem bashing.

[Pototan]

42. there's a difference between "Bashing" nad constructive criticism

but you make my point.

We just had the most saucerful two years of any President and Congress in 2 generations and we lost the House.

If we can't recognize that and make the changes necessary for sustained victories, all the success will be wasted.

So, you make my point. Explain to my how we lost 4 winnable seats in New York with all our success. And I grant you, it was a very successful two years. It it begs the question, why'd we lose the House?

[brush]

43. Hundreds of positives happened. We did good in the mid-terms....

gained seats in the Senate and governor's mansions.

Bash republican insurrectionists.

[Pototan]

46. Ya, we did real well

Jim Jordan is the chair of the Judiciary Committee.

We carried the popular vote in 2000 and 2016. As a result, we have 5 right wing Supreme Court Justices who will be there for a generation.

We could have won the house. How is it that we didn't know that Boebart was vulnerable until after the election? How is it that we did so well that the Chairman of the NDCC lost his own seat in New York? How could we have lost an incumbent's seat to Santos in New York.

how did we lose 4 winnable seats in California?

Elections have consequences and the only way those consequences work in our favor is to win elections, not just do "well".

Bashing Republicans on this site is preaching to the choir. Finding ways to win elections through constructive debate and making the changes necessary to win those elections is my priority.

this is what I did for 35 years in Massachusetts politics and the results of the efforts by a lot of people who think like me are obvious. I would like to share some of those ideas here. When we lost to Scott Brown in a Special, we assessed what went wrong and corrected it. One of the problems was that a lot of my Union Brothers switched sides and voted wrong. We spent two years correcting that mistake. Elizabeth Warren ran with substantial union backing and we spent time and money educating our members and turning them out. When we lose, we figure out the mistake and correct it. We don't bull shit each other with "oh well, we did good". We fix it and win.

That was the team I was on.

You can't find a Republican elected official in Massachusetts with a divining rod. That's the results we need nationwide.

[brush]

47. One trick pony.

[Pototan]

49. In Massachusetts we have more than a one trick pony

we have a herd of thoroughbreds.

Warren, Healy, Clark, McGovern, Neal, Markey and veto proof majorities in the State House and Senate.

Oh, and by the way, we produced the Secretary of Labor.

I mention this as proof it can get done, with hard work and educating the electorate. By proving to our constituents that a better life results in voting Democratic. We have the best state health care plan in the nation, we were first to legalize gay marriage and have one of the highest standards of living.

It can be done, and it can be messaged correctly. Massachusetts is the model.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

76. Thank you for expressing your opinion despite being picked at

I applaud all the work you've done! And agree with you. Coming from the business world, very sound entities would never not do routine self-assessment. And it's not because you like the opposition it's because you love the entity!

[Celerity]

68. Charlie Baker

You can't find a Republican elected official in Massachusetts with a divining rod.

[Pototan]

79. Charlie's out

The only time a Republican can win anything in Mass, is if they act like a Democrat.

Baker appointed Liberal judges, was pro-choice and he was for expanding gay rights. He was the strongest Trump critic of any Republican. Even though he was the most popular Governor in the country, he could not get the Republican nomination.

He chose not to run, so we have an LGBTQ female Governor who won by 30 points.

Sure, a Republican can win in Massachusetts. But they have to run like a Democrat.

Oh, and by the way, I said you can't find a Republican elected official in Massachusetts with a divining rod. Charlie Baker is now a private citizen, so the divining rod won't help.

[Celerity]

80. I didn't see a 'currently sitting' qualifier

[Pototan]

81. It's simple

"You can't find a Republican elected official with a divining rod".

Former "Elected Officials" are a different category.

Trump is no longer an "elected official". Neither is Baker, or Scott Brown.

I hope you can see the difference. If not, there's not much more I can say.

[Celerity]

82. Splitting hairs as up until a few days ago Baker was the sitting governor, plus he had high approval

numbers, which combine to undermine your original positing.

[Pototan]

88. You obviously don't know Massachusetts politics

Baker's high approval numbers came from Democrats, because in order to get elected, he took every Democratic position in the book. Pro-LGBTQ, pro-choice, liberal judges, the most diverse in history. He was the most anti-Trump governor in the country. Baker only had a 30% approval rating among Republicans in Massachusetts. As a result, he could not have won a Republican primary in Massachusetts. It was just like Maryland.

And still, the English language is very plain. In order to be an "elected official", you first have to be an "official". Once holding office does not make you an "official", whether you became former yesterday, last week, last month, last year or 10 years ago. Just ask Jair Bolsonaro.

Democratic Governor, Lt. Governor, AG, Treasurer, Secretary of State, 37 out of 40 State Senators, over 80% of the State Legislators. All 11 Congress People (100%). Both Senators (one is Elezabeth Warren). Second leader in the House, ranking member of Ways and Means, a member of the squad, Our former Boston Mayor as Labor Secretary. Not one of them could, in good conscience, be considered a DINO. If the whole country voted like Massachusetts this site could really be just a cheer leading squad.

[Celerity]

89. Welcome to DU, you are very new here so I will overlook the condescending nature of that reply

Now, to wrap this up from my end (I am done here after this, feel free to keep on replying ad infinitum, but it will be a one-way convo):

All you are going is once again adding in ex post facto qualifiers and framings that were not there when I initially replied, plus expanding the scope of the whole thing far beyond my simple (and correct, given what I replied to) statement.


btw

Baker hardly sounds like a liberal or progressive Dem here, when he is having a go at Biden using typical RW bullshit talking points:

‘I Don't Think It's Fair': Gov. Baker Reacts to Biden's Student Loan Relief Plan

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/i-dont-think-its-fair-gov-baker-reacts-to-bidens-student-loan-relief-plan/2816804/

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker and local lawmakers shared their thoughts Wednesday on President Joe Biden's plan to deliver college student loan relief to low- and middle-income residents. The Republican governor told reporters during a visit to Plainville that he doesn't think Biden's approach is fair or "the right thing to do."

"What if you're somebody who spent a whole ton of money on gear or equipment or developing certification criteria or qualifications through some other program to get a credential that you paid for? You get nothing from this. I don't think this is the right thing to do, I don't think this is the right way to go about it, no," Baker said. "I don't think it's fair to a lot of the people who spent their own money or their family's money or borrowed money to get a degree or credential through some other means so that they were able to improve themselves."

cheers

[Pototan]

90. Charkie Baker is a Republican like Joe Manchin is a Democrat

Condescending?

Give me a break. I made a point of a clean sweep Democratic state, and you brought up the former Governor who was driven from office because he lost control of a Trump loving Republican party which went down to defeat by 20 to 30 points in every statewide race. You tried to make it look like I wasn't accurate when I was entirely accurate. Former means former. Ed Brooke was a former Republican Senator, Mitt Romney, Bill Weld. The point still stands. While the rest of the country lost the House, Massachusetts elected a Democrat to every major political office in the state. We did it by defining our opponents, concentrating on GOTV and taking nothing for granted. If the California and New York Democratic parties did the same thing, we'd hold all the gavels.

That's my point and you're splitting hairs.

I'm not happy by just beating the spread, as the Dems did in this mid-term. I'm only satisfied by winning, because that's who governs.

[betsuni]

23. At least "milquetoast" "spineless" and "complacent" aren't so popular for bashing Democrats

anymore.

[Pototan]

28. I think you may have missed my point

Our messaging is too hard to explain. I believe in Democratic Socialism because I understand it and how it works in Scandinavian countries. But once that 8% hears "Socialism" the conversation is over, and we lost that vote. That's why I never bring it up in conversations.

This proportion of voters decides who wins and losses and we need emotional easy to understand slogans. Joe Biden understood that and hammered home the "Democracy is on the line" theme. During all the strategy sessions, a lot of Dems resisted that theme. Joe Biden ran with it, and it cut our losses.

I'm a strong Democrat and I hate to lose. I don't believe in "Pyric Victories". The fact we did well in keeping the margin close in the House doesn't satisfy me. The Assholes still hold the gavels. Jim Jordan still Chairs the Judiciary Committee.

Sure, we outran the polls. But that's not good enough for me. This country should have two parties, and one of them should not be controlled by Nazis, because that's who controls the Republican party. If we are to save America, we need to win a majority of national votes and control every chamber for 10 years, not just come close. I'm sorry If not being a cheerleader offends you, but we need to win. This ain't horseshoes.

[betsuni]

30. You're right, I don't understand your point.

Why is Democratic messaging too hard to explain? Everybody knows what the Democratic Party stands for: government. Why isn't it clear why Republicans won the House? Republican voters don't vote on policy. Not the fault of Democrats.

Why would slogans work? Obama didn't win in 2008 because of slogans, it was the terrible economy. Biden will be reelected because of his record. Nobody's in the mood for populist slogans.

And the personal insult. Cheerleader, rah rah cheerleader, echo chamber, marching in lockstep, genuflecting, hive mind, etc. I thought it was "this ain't beanbag."

[Pototan]

32. It's not just about defining our side

but defining the other side, too.

Maybe I'm just too spoiled, as I have been involved in Massachusetts politics, where we expect to win all the time.

11 Dem Congress 0 Rep.

every statewide office and a LGBTQ Governor

Both Senators, and very Progressive at that.

37 out of 40 State Senators.

An overwhelming majority in the state house

I have been involved in Mass. State Dem politics for 50 years. Maybe my perspective is a little skewed toward having a very low tolerance for losing.

[DET]

33. You're Wrong

No, everybody does not understand what the Democratic Party stands for and what we’ve accomplished. Two words: Fox News. It takes precision messaging to cut through the lies and reach gullible, low information, low intelligence voters that have the attention span of a gnat - but who may still be persuadable despite the constant barrage of right wing lies and their own limitations.

We’re all on the same side here. Can we please tone down the rhetoric?

[betsuni]

44. Republicans know that Democrats stand for government. They just hate the government.

Democrats know what the party stands for, government helping the people. Then there's the propaganda that both sides are the same and Democrats are corrupt because they're bribed by billionaires/corporations/oligarchs and this "status quo" needs a revolution. All about government.

[DET]

48. Yes, But...

Republicans ‘hate the government’ because they don’t know or believe that the government stands for ‘helping the people’. Kind of like they hated Obamacare until they realized they were on it. We’re not talking about the best and the brightest here.

I don’t know what it will ultimately take to get through to these people, but dispassionate detailed discussion of the issues clearly won’t do it. I think that’s why Biden has been so good at messaging - he’s real, down to earth, and people relate to his pain. He’s also savvy enough to use that to his and our advantage. John Fetterman has the same sort of vibe in a completely different package. Fetterman’s ads were brilliant. The Lincoln Project ads have also been extremely effective. They’re short, to the point, use deeply cutting humor, and evoke an emotional response. I’d love to see more of that kind of messaging.

[betsuni]

50. Agree Fetterman is great, not beholden to any populist SuperPACs who want him to

cling to purity tests like Medicare for All and attack the Democratic Party, he's terrific!

[Just A Box Of Rain]

57. None of the countries in Scandinavia have "Democratic Socialist" regiemes.

Not one.

Talk about terrible messaging.

Egads!

[betsuni]

51. "Timid" is the new "spineless."

[Pototan]

58. the opposite of Timid is Aggressive, not spineless

Do you think we were aggressive enough against Santos and Boebart?

Do you think our GOTV was competent enough in Biden districts? I'm not saying we could have won them all, but half, in this atmosphere, was quite doable.

How about losing 18 seats in districts that Biden won? I didn't say "spineless", I said timid.

[betsuni]

65. Blame Democrats! "We"?

[treestar]

73. "cerebral"

of course, the anti-intellectualism of the Republican voter must be respected!

[Pototan]

91. Again, we will not convince Republicans

It's the 8% of independents who vote on emotion that decide every election.

That's why "defund the police" was fatal once it took hold, even though the slogan only came from a couple of back benches and not from Democratic leadership. You can explain that to the 8% until you're blue in the face, but that's all they hear.

We have to learn how to keep it simple. Not for the Democrats and not for the Republicans. For the middle 8%.

[question everything]

26. He/she is a newbie, hence low post. Cut them some slack. Please

[Pototan]

34. Thanks for your support

but I've come here for some healthy debate in an effort to give some ideas on how to improve of Democratic numbers.

You see, early on (50 years ago) I learned that politics is less about philosophy and more about math. I learned there is only winning and losing, and margins are not that significant (ask Al Gore or Hillary). Some of our best Presidents won by a whisker (Jefferson, Lincoln and Kennedy).

I have trouble with this Democratic victory lap when we lost the House. sure, we did better than expected, but when you are on the right side of history, you should win outright. the analogy I will use here do describe my feelings is like a football team that goes into a game as a 12-point underdog and losses by 3 points. you still get the L instead of a W. They still have the gavels and that sucks.

[betsuni]

67. ...

[Cha]

54. Let Hekate Express her Opinion.

TY

[Laura PourMeADrink]

77. +1.

[Progressive dog]

9. Sometimes a little sarcsm is necessary

I think the Democratic leadership has done and continues to do a great job of messaging.

[Pototan]

27. Why did we lose the House?

I know we did better than expected, but why were the predictions of a huge loss even out there?

We have the best economy in the world. the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. an infrastructure plan in place. We are the defenders of Democracy. We held the Seante because the other side nominated unelectable numb skulls.

The other side wins people's votes by just using the socialist label. Look at Miami-Dade. Ridiculous. In New York it was crime. They hammered that home, and we had no response and lost winnable seats that cost us the House.

Our messaging is too complicated to explain to the 8%. We need to simplify it. If people vote in their own best interests and for the country they love. Dems should get 60% of the vote nationally every time.

Can you imagine that in a room somebody came up with "America First" as a slogan, without realizing Lindburgh, Henry Ford and the other Hitler apologists used that same slogan first? And the slogan stuck and is repeated like a positive? Where is America's sense of history?

That's my point. We shouldn't treat that 8% as knowledgeable, but instead as emotional.

[Progressive dog]

39. If those people are not capable of thought

they are not persuadable. Democrats do not have unlimited money to persuade all these ignorant people while the opponents control big parts of mass media and always have more money to spend on advertising. The social media has no standards to prevent blatant lies from driving out the truth.
We are fortunate to have the leaders we have. The small losses in the house and the holding of the Senate were not predicted by the pollsters or the mass media.
If it's not broken, don't fix it. IMO

[betsuni]

45. +1

[LetMyPeopleVote]

55. We lost due to gerrymandering

Link to tweet

[Pototan]

56. There are 18 Republican Congressmen from Biden districts

all we needed was 5.

How did we lose 4 winnable seats in New York, including incumbents and an additional 4 seats in California?

I contend that we lost sight of the ball in districts that all we needed to win was to have our regular turnout and an aggressive campaign.

I'm as strong a Democrat as there is. I hate to lose, and these 8 seats were winnable, including the NDCC chair himself.

I'm sorry. Beating the spread is not good enough for me. Controlling those gavels would have been an amazing story and put an end to Trumpism. We were that close and didn't realize it. The people who are supposed to know, didn't.

[betsuni]

66. "I'm as strong a Democrat as there is."

[Just A Box Of Rain]

59. If, as you say: "The other side wins people's votes by just using the socialist label"

then why would you advocate that Democrats take up "Democratic Socialism?"

Especially when the Scandinavian countries you cite as models, are not--as you wrongly claimed--examples of Democratic Socialism.

Seem like the worst messaging advise for our party ever. And one you appear to acknowledge.

[Pototan]

60. Let me explain

as I said in my post, I understand and beleive in Democratic socialism. But the 8% of the voters that control the outcome of elections don't understand it and never will, so it must remain unspoken. In reality, we already practice it and that 8% would howel if it went away, Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare. In fact, labor unions, of which I was an employee for 25 years, is a pure example of Democratic socialism. Every union employee is paid the same wage in relation to years of service, not an arbitrary "merit system" in which that "merit" is determined by somebody's uncle. Each union employee has the same benefits. In my union, 100% gold plated health care, a defined pension and an annuity. since it was considered private sector, a longtime employee would max out his Social Security.

However, even many of our members couldn't grasp this. don't you remember during the tea bagger revolution the elderly woman holding the sign that read "The Government Should Keep Its Hands Off My Medicare". You couldn't explain in 100 years to that woman how ludicrous that opinion is.

Hence, my premise is that that 8% has to be targeted at an emotional level. You could lose your Democracy, you could lose your rights, you could lose your Social Security by voting Republican. It has to be simple, visceral and emotional. Trying to reason with them or trying to educate them is impossible. Now, I'm sure you will see in one or two of my posts about educating our union members. The difference is that they become a captive audience at union meetings. Especially in meetings in which their wages and benefits are determined and they vote on its disbursement. That's when the fact they have such great wages and benefits are not because of Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson, but because of the union leadership that gets legislation passed that helps each and every one of them and their families. I would say, "you don't believe us, then why do the non-union electricians make 60% of your rate and benefits and their employers donate heavily to Republicans?"

that's what we did in the trades after the debacle of Scoot Bowns' special election upset and the double-digit Warren win two years later.

But the rest of that 8% won't sit for an hour-long session to listen to why they should vote in their own best interest. that's why we need to keep it simple and appeal to emotion and leave no stone unturned.

In my opinion, the National Democratic Party took New York and California for granted and it cost us 8 seats, and hence the majority.

Everyone else can slap each other on the back, but to me a loss is a loss and a Republican majority in the House will move this country from crisis to crisis in the next two years.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

61. So the "message" you have for the Democratic Party is to embrace duplicity?

You say that since "8% of the voters that control the outcome of elections don't understand it [it being Democratic Socialism] and never will, so it [an embrace of Democratic Socialism] must remain unspoken."

So politics based on lies and duplicity?

To make matters worse, you go onto falsely claim that Social Security is an example of "Democratic Socialism," which is a both an entirely false-frame and a right-wing talking point. This claim is just as mendacious as the earlier claim that Scandinavian liberal democracies are examples of "Democratic Socialism," when all these nations have advanced capitalist economic systems (and not one is socialist).

Social Security and other social programs are progressive achievements that were put in place by liberal Democrats like FDR, in an effort--in part--to save this nation from the twin evils of populist fascism and populist socialism.

Our party's strength lies in embracing reason, compassion, and hewing to truth in the realm of politics, not stooping to dishonesty and duplicity--as you suggest as a better course.

In sum, you are offering up just about the worst advice for our party's messaging that I've ever read.

People are actually not stupid. They know what an embrace of authoritarian/totalitarian politics looks like.

No thanks.

[Pototan]

62. Ya, they're not stupid

electing Trump was a well thought out approach to American politics.

The 8% are not stupid, but intentionally ill-informed.

How else do you explain people like Boebart, Greene, Santos, et all in Congress.

Someone once said, "nobody went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" and Churchill once said, "the greatest argument against Democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter."

I want to do anything that's legal to win elections, because losing to this group could be the end of America.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

63. Once again you dodge the main points.

The so-called advice you offered to Democrats for "messaging" is based on a series of falsehoods, and we were to embrace it (which we won't) we be sunk electorally as a party.

None of the positive examples of progressive social policies has been an achievement of liberal Democrats or liberal social Democrats in Europe.

Not a bit of it is "Democratic Socialism." People are not that stupid.

[KS Toronado]

64. Just one survey, there are more with about the same rankings.

https://www.thetoptens.com/nations/socialist-countries/

[Just A Box Of Rain]

69. This list represents mendacity of the worst kind.

Most of these listed states is remotely “socialist,” until none gets to Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. But the inclusion of the Nordic states is a sick joke.

This is part of a major gaslighting operation by those who think people are stupid enough to confuse liberal social democracy with socialism.

What bollocks.

The politics of lies and duplicity is anti-liberal, anti-progressive, and has no place in a reality-based community.

Good grief.

[KS Toronado]

70. " confuse liberal social democracy with socialism."

Educate me what's the difference?

[Just A Box Of Rain]

71. One has an advanced capitalist economic system allied to a liberal democratic political structure

and the other does not.

Not remotely similar ideologies.

[betsuni]

10. Was hoping with Jeffries the whining about leadership might ease up, all that

about Pelosi being too old and insinuations of clinging to power with no thought of a successor: "many years of power being concentrated in leadership with lack of ... real grooming of a next generation of leadership" and all the baseless whines. But there is always messaging! The dream of just the right new leadership with just the right new slogans that Democrats refuse to do because (fill in the whine).

[luv2fly]

11. Your snarky response doesn't address the messaging issue

It only addresses YOUR message.

[enough]

7. I keep wondering about that phrase. "Morality Police."

It has a specific meaning in Iran. But here in the USA using that word suggests that there’s some actual real moral issue being referred to. We need another word to include the fact that these people are not actually protecting or even concerned with anything remotely connected with being moral. Trying to think what that would be.

[JI7]

8. Messaging is overrated. The people that support him support

the things he is doing. That's WHY they support him.

[Pototan]

13. Please read reply 4

[mcar]

15. Seems like they messaged the hell

out of the last several days. But sure, let's pick out one thing and slam Dems for it.

BTW, DeSantis is a dictator. Maybe criticize him? Just a suggestion.

[Demsrule86]

18. With friends like this...it is a miracle Democrat ever win...everyone thinks they are an expert.

[mcar]

29. And they always thinks Dems are bad, wrong,

spineless, etc. Despite evidence to the contrary.

[newdayneeded]

35. This board has gotten worse.

I wrote a couple of original posts about my thoughts the last few days, it just turned into a hate fest, even got accused of being a Democrat basher.

[Cetacea]

52. You'd be surprised at how may experts lift ideas from here.

DU should have a section for budding and experienced operatives who can post without being attacked.

The OP has good points, and you are also correct that messaging has been very good these past few days.

[Pototan]

20. Biden did the messaging on Democracy

which was effective.

We screwed up in New York and it cost us the House.

[LenaBaby61]

25. President Biden has done a fantastic job in his message for months now .....

And yes .... New York, New York ..... YIKES 😑

[DET]

16. Good Idea

I agree with OP’s well written post. We could really benefit from the kind of pithy, easy to understand slogans that the MAGAts excel at. BTW, personally, I think the piling on of a new articulate poster is uncalled for.

[Demsrule86]

19. Do you? Well I think the 'slogan' would be meaningless to those on the right...

[Pototan]

21. Please read reply 4

[Laura PourMeADrink]

78. +1

[republianmushroom]

17. like it

[Efilroft Sul]

31. Call it the governor's gestapo.

It's short, it's alliterative, and it's got a beat that sounds like billy clubs on the skulls of those who are different.

[brooklynite]

36. Answer: we don't attack people to make the blogosphere feel good

Until DeSantis is the Republican nominee for President or is specifically challenging President Biden's policies, we don't need to have the Party fixate on him.

[Pototan]

37. why define him now

we can just wait until after he wins, like we did in 2016 with Trump.

That worked out well.

[brooklynite]

40. We defined Trump very well in 2016...

People didn't care. You have to start with a positive message for your nominee (which we didn't have in the battleground States)

[Pototan]

41. We defined him when it was too late

Define the candidate as early as possible and repeat it as often as possible.

If you follow that method, you won't end up with a Congressman Santos.

Defining Santos now is a little too late, don't you think?

I like the Massachusetts Democratic Party method. Define your opponent when he or she becomes viable and win the election by 30 points.

[inthewind21]

75. Gee

Who knew it was just that easy! Pretty sure Walker was "defined" yet he got 1.6 mil votes and there had to be a run-off. And Fetterman, he defined the shit out of Oz. Yet that was a squeaker win. No, Trump was not "defined" too late. If you think all those that voted for him would have not done so had the DEMS only "defined" him sooner, I got some beach front property in Arizona for sale. You can "define" all day long, the reality is, there is a VERY large swath of the population that want the crazy constant chaos and thrive on the thought of burning it all to the ground. The more you "define" the more they will flock. THAT is how you explain Boebert, MTG, Gosar and the rest of the nut brigade. You really think any of the conspiracy nut bags would have voted against MTG if only the DEMS had defined her better? They know exactly who she is, that's why they voted for her. And the more DEMS "define" the more they will flock to her and those just like her.

[electric_blue68]

84. I don't there are as many of these people as you think...

You can "define" all day long, the reality is, there is a VERY large swath of the population that want the crazy constant chaos and thrive on the thought of burning it all to the ground.

Instead (imho) - there's still a large swath of people who are racist, sexist, anti POC immigrants; drumphf appealed to them on those levels. Those are the majority of drumphf voters as far as I can tell.

And, yes, there are "burn it all down" types, but I think there's fewer of those.

[betsuni]

85. +1

[Cetacea]

53. He ran on how well he handled Covid-with help from God no less. Crickets.

82k dead (mostly from blue Miami/Dade and Broward Counties...) I'm sure the numbers are much higher.
I didn't see anyone running ads to counter his claim.
I watched people on TV panels echo his claim without challenge.
I think the problem goes deeper than dem messaging alone.

Welcome to DU!

I do like the MASSACHUSETTS Model...

[treestar]

72. The Democrats are not at fault because the media

does what it does. If only the Democrats had better messaging! It's not that - it's the media not paying attention to it.

[Prairie_Seagull]

74. IMO, We need to head up to 30,000 feet with our messaging.

i believe we are in a 'teaching moment'. As a country we have dropped the ball relative to teaching civics.
Example: 2 days ago I was talking to my university educated daughter and she had no idea that Washington DC was not associated with any State. Of course this is anecdotal and only one example but you get my point.

I think we need to start at square one, ok maybe two. Use lofty rhetoric to teach those who don't really know what it is to be a democrat/liberal/progressive. If all we do is speechify in the weeds, it's difficult to inspire.

I believe it's our foundational knowledge that needs shoring up.

Use lofty rhetoric to teach and inspire.

[Silent3]

83. What is most need is a smarter voting public that doesn't respond to "messaging"

Perhaps that's an impossible goal, or if not impossible, at best a very long term project.

Good government shouldn't be reducible to simple, or worse, simplistic, messages. Good government requires policies that are a match to the complexities of reality, which are seldom reducible to sound bites and bumper sticker slogans.

Republicans don't care about good government. That makes their job of "messaging" much easier. They don't care if they're appealing to prejudice, hate, and irrationality.

It's a sad thing that, since we don't have a smart electorate, Democrats are forced to play the "messaging" game to even have a chance. But Democrats will probably never be as good at "messaging" as Republicans without stooping to the level of Republicans.

[betsuni]

86. +1

[electric_blue68]

87. There have been times in the past I think Dem's messaging hasn't been as strong as I thot it....

could be.
I'm not talking about this past mid-term election.

I don't think that's necessarily "Democrat bashing" esp if when making critizism you can provide examples of how you think it could be better.

I was a paste up & mechanicals person, and a graphics designer 5 ish+ years; with about 8 months in a very small Ad Agency on Madison Ave ( 😁 ), and a different kind of commercial artist for another 3 years.
(Various office work, otherwise)

I wrote a lot of poetry from 5th grade through some past college. On a rare occasion one will still pop up.
I mention that bc it does point out I'm somewhat cogent with word play - which is part of advertising, andmessaging.

I use to sometimes make up storyboards text & visuals for political ads, and make and xerox local flyers I wrote and designed w visuals to put up in my neighborhood, and at Universities here in NYC.


This time round - two things. The extreme Repug gerrymandering. The adage that "the Party in power losses seats in the mid term".

Could we have done better in NY & Cali. Idk. I didn't pay attention that way, so I don't really have an informed opinion.