General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Populism: Why can't we use it? [View all]JHan
(10,173 posts)this analysis exists.
I don't blame you, I blame pundits and the overarching theme of media narratives which exists in two modes for the most part: "dems in disarray" & "Dems don't have a message"
Pundits, who are (sometimes) former campaign message people or pollsters, love to push the idea of "messaging", and their ideas of "messaging" are empty non-substantive platitudes. It's the laziest take in the universe because there's no empirical way to test whether it is true or not. Every single loss is chalked up to "lack of message" even if a candidate just loses by a couple votes. If a candidate wins by a couple votes, then their "messaging" won. Lack of messaging is not the problem, it is how that messaging is received and whether it can pierce through the noise of competing narratives and very often that is outside of the control of Democratic candidates. When you have legacy media outlets legitimizing terrible takes and pushing bothsideism , the framing of issues become fucked.
Because God fucking forbid we look at how the GOP has gamed the system, from voter suppression to Gerrymandering. I guess those things aren't sexy enough to talk about.
When Ossoff lost it was the same nonsense about messaging. Jason Johnson at The Root then had to school some folks: