Agree that we need more media infrastructure, which I know Dan is involved in creating. Absent that (because it is a multiyear/decade process that may take way too long), we need to make sure that the people most likely to carry the message (the base/activists) have the tools to do so. Anat Shenker-Osorio (between Dan and Anat, I think we've got messaging covered), contends that while it might be true that we have to convince the swing voter, no swing voter is going to hear a message in the current environment. So we need to empower the base with strong and consistent messaging to carry that message. By that she means (and I concur), that the choir needs to be empowered to run with the message and pass it on over social media, in real life, and any other creative way possible. She, Mike Podhorzer (AFL/CIO) and Dr. Jiggy Geronimo hold biweekly briefings for the activist base on messaging to keep it simple, consistent, and powerful. It's now up to us to get out there and hammer the hell out of it. My organization creates content using this messaging strategy (moreperfectdemocracy.org) as do DemCast, DemocracyLabs, DemVoice1, and many others. People need to pick one or more of the orgs and amplify the hell out of the messaging, preferably among all the people they know in real life. We're on FB and Twitter and welcome other channels. We're obviously not going to get the major media on board (except for a select few individuals) so we're going to have to make something of nothing before we can rely on the big money to create massive media channels (again, besides crooked), to do this. Rant over for now. Thank you, Dan, for these newsletters. Your voice forms a large part of More Perfect Democracy messaging strategy.
If cultural issues drove some low-information swing voters into the Republican party, and outrage-inducing cultural issues drives online traffic, gaining traction via Facebook algorithms, part of a new approach to messaging would seem to be truthful, catchy, sharp, fear-inducing negative campaigning. "Senator "Cancun" Cruz,, the Ivy League Wacko Bird, yakked for 21 hours against basic health insurance while a million uninsured Texans face dying alone." "Chuck "No Dementia" Grassley promoted mass shootings by mentally-impaired; who dies next?"
Also part of a new approach might be a focus on the outcomes, not the means, of the benefits from BBB; instead of "lowers housing costs" say "homeless vets finally helped with the rehab and construction of millions of homes."
No question need to find donors (I would gladly be one) to build a "factual media" infrastructure to counter right wing BS. Having said that, if D's ever come up with anything as utterly stupid as "Defund the Police" again, I'll run as an independent just to get media coverage to let everyone know how f'ing stupid that is. Also, I think Shor is right about the economy. Blacks and Latinos did well economically under Trump (not due to his policies, he inherited a good economy from Obama) and when Corona hit, many probably blamed D's for shutting things down and hurting them economically. To most people, getting corona and being hospitalized or killed was/is an abstract concern. Losing your job and not being able to pay rent or buy food is a concrete concern. Focus on people's concrete concerns. This, among many reasons, is why wokeness is also so ridiculous. Who TF benefits concretely from all that nonsense? Worse, most of it just doesn't hold up to logic or evidence. If we're the party of science, we can't get caught up in wokeness. D's need to both change their tune, and get a louder radio to play it.
You’ve been had. 99% of Democrats never advocated for defund the police. Also “wokeness” has the same problem. It’s a meaningless right wing chimera. No Democrats have ever said that “wokeness” is a Democratic priority.
Re: wokeness-- they say it every time they publicly refuse to accept a simple fact like "some muslims are terrorists" or "some black people commit crimes" or refuse to admit that racism and sexism, while real, are not the cause of every problem. It's not a right-wing chimera at the University of Michigan, apparenlty. Re: Defund the Police, I understand this was an activist thing and most D's knew it was politically toxic, but excusing crimes (riots, theft, homicide) and veiling it as "people being desperate because they're being brutalized by the police" made it an easy link for RW and even mainstream media.
Who specifically is “they” and can you provide a quote from “them” that proves your assertion? Also who specifically said "people being desperate because they're being brutalized by the police"? You put it in quotes so you should be quoting someone, or else you’re lying. I’m unfamiliar with the U of M reference, to what are you referring? I believe you are making this up as you go along.
From AOC (arguably one of the most visible D's around) about increases in crime in NYC: “Maybe this has to do with the fact that people aren’t paying their rent and are scared to pay their rent and so they go out and they need to feed their child and they don’t have money so … they feel like they either need to shoplift some bread or go hungry.” Not a direct link to police brutality-- my mistake-- but falsely linking increased crime to poverty.
A University of Michigan professor has been removed from his post after he showed the Oscar-nominated 1965 film 'Othello' in class. The issue? Actor Laurence Olivier, who plays the titular role, was in blackface. After that showing in September, students complained to higher-ups and Bright Sheng was subsequently removed from his post.
So since the right wing bogeyman AOC is your answer, you’re admitting there is no “they” or “them”. As far as “falsely linking the increase in crime to poverty” that’s an argument of rich vs poor that goes back thousands of years. I land on the side of the poor. Have you never heard of Jean Valjean? Finally your U of M argument makes the classic logical fallacy of specific to general. Further just because a movie is Oscar nominated doesn’t make it any less racist. In fact given the history of the Oscars it’s more likely that a nomination makes it more racist.
I come down on the side of the poor, too, but the data on the increase in crime in NYC showed that property thefts were not driving the increase. Violent crime was. What she said was verifiably false. When someone that visible makes a claim or offers an explanation that is false, it will be easy to tie that to the rest of the party. That was my point.
You asked me to explain the UM incident, so I did. Although I could, I'm not going to find every example of a professor or other employee stepping down or being fired for being race- or gender- insensitive or not providing safe-enough spaces to make the case generally.
Two things can both be true: the Oscars can be racist, and an Oscar-nominated film can be instructional. He showed it to help students understand "how opera composer Giuseppe Verdi had adapted Shakespeare’s play into an opera". The prof apologized, and admitted his mistake, but that wasn't enough. That's unfortunate.
Getting back to the point: my argument is about messaging (although I do think wokeness is corrosive-- not in the same universe as the Big Lie, of course. It's not binary. One can be both skeptical of wokeness, and also completely outraged by the Big Lie). These are just examples of what the RW and mainstream media will use to further alienate voters D's need.
You could make an argument that D's need the voters who wanted the prof fired more, and you may be right. But if asked about this incident, what would a good message be for a D politician? An honest one, first and foremost, but maybe also one that considers the dynamics that Shor is explaining.
I will work like hell for D candidates in 2022 and 2024, just like I will to defeat the MAGA School Board WRITE-IN candidates who, frankly, are doing a great job of getting their signs out here in purple Chester County PA (ie "Make OJR School District great again") and seeing NO signs for the traditional R and D candidates. Since signs cannot be put up on public property until two weeks before an election, this means that the MAGA candidates have been going door-to-door here and they are finding success. I pray that the voters don't think that 'those with the most signs, win' but meanwhile, today, I am downloading the passport application as are two older artist friends of mine. If all goes to hell, we will need to get outta here.
One thing the septuagenarians that run the party could do today is open a 24/7 war room to put out a clear and consistent message every day and especially on weekends. Can’t anyone here play this game?
I was dismayed to read today that he has appointed corporate lobbyists to the DNC...I mean, really? Dan tell me I have this all wrong please. "DNC chair Jaime Harrison has proposed a slate of lobbyists, representing corporate firms such as Google, Koch Industries, Facebook, General Atomic and others, for at-large seats to lead the party." From realsludge.com
“Give me a one-handed Economist. All my economists say 'on the one hand...', then 'but on the other...” ― Harry Truman.
Herein lies a big problem with trying to define a political approach that is failing, or one that will be successful, there simply isn't good data that will prove it, and there may never be when you're dealing with irrational people.
There seems to be some growing data that shows that the uninformed voters (the swing voters) don't vote based on facts of what you did for them, or promises of what you'll do for them. If they did, Republicans would lose every election by unanimous rejection. And yet Democrats continue to run on messages like "we'll lower your prescription drug prices by 10%", while Republicans run on things like, "there are hordes of Ebola filled zombie children storming the borders to come murder your family". We are genetically programmed to have a strong response to fear (fight or flight), and Republicans realize that and have run campaigns for decades on lies, fear, and hate.
But you really nailed it about the right wing propaganda machine and our absolutely failed stenographer media that sees its job as being balanced enough to give equal weight of Republican lies and the truth.
The greatest truth Democrats can use to instill bone chilling fear in swing voters is the truth that our democracy is under attack from a fascist GOP and the consequences of losing this fight will be an unimaginable horror for you and your family. But if we can't punch through the right wing propaganda control of information flow, no message will matter.
Agree that we need more media infrastructure, which I know Dan is involved in creating. Absent that (because it is a multiyear/decade process that may take way too long), we need to make sure that the people most likely to carry the message (the base/activists) have the tools to do so. Anat Shenker-Osorio (between Dan and Anat, I think we've got messaging covered), contends that while it might be true that we have to convince the swing voter, no swing voter is going to hear a message in the current environment. So we need to empower the base with strong and consistent messaging to carry that message. By that she means (and I concur), that the choir needs to be empowered to run with the message and pass it on over social media, in real life, and any other creative way possible. She, Mike Podhorzer (AFL/CIO) and Dr. Jiggy Geronimo hold biweekly briefings for the activist base on messaging to keep it simple, consistent, and powerful. It's now up to us to get out there and hammer the hell out of it. My organization creates content using this messaging strategy (moreperfectdemocracy.org) as do DemCast, DemocracyLabs, DemVoice1, and many others. People need to pick one or more of the orgs and amplify the hell out of the messaging, preferably among all the people they know in real life. We're on FB and Twitter and welcome other channels. We're obviously not going to get the major media on board (except for a select few individuals) so we're going to have to make something of nothing before we can rely on the big money to create massive media channels (again, besides crooked), to do this. Rant over for now. Thank you, Dan, for these newsletters. Your voice forms a large part of More Perfect Democracy messaging strategy.
If cultural issues drove some low-information swing voters into the Republican party, and outrage-inducing cultural issues drives online traffic, gaining traction via Facebook algorithms, part of a new approach to messaging would seem to be truthful, catchy, sharp, fear-inducing negative campaigning. "Senator "Cancun" Cruz,, the Ivy League Wacko Bird, yakked for 21 hours against basic health insurance while a million uninsured Texans face dying alone." "Chuck "No Dementia" Grassley promoted mass shootings by mentally-impaired; who dies next?"
Also part of a new approach might be a focus on the outcomes, not the means, of the benefits from BBB; instead of "lowers housing costs" say "homeless vets finally helped with the rehab and construction of millions of homes."
Could the Pod Save team go big? Weeknight prime time show? Now there is an ecosystem!
No question need to find donors (I would gladly be one) to build a "factual media" infrastructure to counter right wing BS. Having said that, if D's ever come up with anything as utterly stupid as "Defund the Police" again, I'll run as an independent just to get media coverage to let everyone know how f'ing stupid that is. Also, I think Shor is right about the economy. Blacks and Latinos did well economically under Trump (not due to his policies, he inherited a good economy from Obama) and when Corona hit, many probably blamed D's for shutting things down and hurting them economically. To most people, getting corona and being hospitalized or killed was/is an abstract concern. Losing your job and not being able to pay rent or buy food is a concrete concern. Focus on people's concrete concerns. This, among many reasons, is why wokeness is also so ridiculous. Who TF benefits concretely from all that nonsense? Worse, most of it just doesn't hold up to logic or evidence. If we're the party of science, we can't get caught up in wokeness. D's need to both change their tune, and get a louder radio to play it.
You’ve been had. 99% of Democrats never advocated for defund the police. Also “wokeness” has the same problem. It’s a meaningless right wing chimera. No Democrats have ever said that “wokeness” is a Democratic priority.
Re: wokeness-- they say it every time they publicly refuse to accept a simple fact like "some muslims are terrorists" or "some black people commit crimes" or refuse to admit that racism and sexism, while real, are not the cause of every problem. It's not a right-wing chimera at the University of Michigan, apparenlty. Re: Defund the Police, I understand this was an activist thing and most D's knew it was politically toxic, but excusing crimes (riots, theft, homicide) and veiling it as "people being desperate because they're being brutalized by the police" made it an easy link for RW and even mainstream media.
Who specifically is “they” and can you provide a quote from “them” that proves your assertion? Also who specifically said "people being desperate because they're being brutalized by the police"? You put it in quotes so you should be quoting someone, or else you’re lying. I’m unfamiliar with the U of M reference, to what are you referring? I believe you are making this up as you go along.
From AOC (arguably one of the most visible D's around) about increases in crime in NYC: “Maybe this has to do with the fact that people aren’t paying their rent and are scared to pay their rent and so they go out and they need to feed their child and they don’t have money so … they feel like they either need to shoplift some bread or go hungry.” Not a direct link to police brutality-- my mistake-- but falsely linking increased crime to poverty.
A University of Michigan professor has been removed from his post after he showed the Oscar-nominated 1965 film 'Othello' in class. The issue? Actor Laurence Olivier, who plays the titular role, was in blackface. After that showing in September, students complained to higher-ups and Bright Sheng was subsequently removed from his post.
So since the right wing bogeyman AOC is your answer, you’re admitting there is no “they” or “them”. As far as “falsely linking the increase in crime to poverty” that’s an argument of rich vs poor that goes back thousands of years. I land on the side of the poor. Have you never heard of Jean Valjean? Finally your U of M argument makes the classic logical fallacy of specific to general. Further just because a movie is Oscar nominated doesn’t make it any less racist. In fact given the history of the Oscars it’s more likely that a nomination makes it more racist.
I come down on the side of the poor, too, but the data on the increase in crime in NYC showed that property thefts were not driving the increase. Violent crime was. What she said was verifiably false. When someone that visible makes a claim or offers an explanation that is false, it will be easy to tie that to the rest of the party. That was my point.
You asked me to explain the UM incident, so I did. Although I could, I'm not going to find every example of a professor or other employee stepping down or being fired for being race- or gender- insensitive or not providing safe-enough spaces to make the case generally.
Two things can both be true: the Oscars can be racist, and an Oscar-nominated film can be instructional. He showed it to help students understand "how opera composer Giuseppe Verdi had adapted Shakespeare’s play into an opera". The prof apologized, and admitted his mistake, but that wasn't enough. That's unfortunate.
Getting back to the point: my argument is about messaging (although I do think wokeness is corrosive-- not in the same universe as the Big Lie, of course. It's not binary. One can be both skeptical of wokeness, and also completely outraged by the Big Lie). These are just examples of what the RW and mainstream media will use to further alienate voters D's need.
You could make an argument that D's need the voters who wanted the prof fired more, and you may be right. But if asked about this incident, what would a good message be for a D politician? An honest one, first and foremost, but maybe also one that considers the dynamics that Shor is explaining.
I will work like hell for D candidates in 2022 and 2024, just like I will to defeat the MAGA School Board WRITE-IN candidates who, frankly, are doing a great job of getting their signs out here in purple Chester County PA (ie "Make OJR School District great again") and seeing NO signs for the traditional R and D candidates. Since signs cannot be put up on public property until two weeks before an election, this means that the MAGA candidates have been going door-to-door here and they are finding success. I pray that the voters don't think that 'those with the most signs, win' but meanwhile, today, I am downloading the passport application as are two older artist friends of mine. If all goes to hell, we will need to get outta here.
One thing the septuagenarians that run the party could do today is open a 24/7 war room to put out a clear and consistent message every day and especially on weekends. Can’t anyone here play this game?
Um, I don't think Jaime Harrison is 70.
True, but how much power does he wield? He seems completely absent from these discussions.
I was dismayed to read today that he has appointed corporate lobbyists to the DNC...I mean, really? Dan tell me I have this all wrong please. "DNC chair Jaime Harrison has proposed a slate of lobbyists, representing corporate firms such as Google, Koch Industries, Facebook, General Atomic and others, for at-large seats to lead the party." From realsludge.com
“Give me a one-handed Economist. All my economists say 'on the one hand...', then 'but on the other...” ― Harry Truman.
Herein lies a big problem with trying to define a political approach that is failing, or one that will be successful, there simply isn't good data that will prove it, and there may never be when you're dealing with irrational people.
There seems to be some growing data that shows that the uninformed voters (the swing voters) don't vote based on facts of what you did for them, or promises of what you'll do for them. If they did, Republicans would lose every election by unanimous rejection. And yet Democrats continue to run on messages like "we'll lower your prescription drug prices by 10%", while Republicans run on things like, "there are hordes of Ebola filled zombie children storming the borders to come murder your family". We are genetically programmed to have a strong response to fear (fight or flight), and Republicans realize that and have run campaigns for decades on lies, fear, and hate.
But you really nailed it about the right wing propaganda machine and our absolutely failed stenographer media that sees its job as being balanced enough to give equal weight of Republican lies and the truth.
The greatest truth Democrats can use to instill bone chilling fear in swing voters is the truth that our democracy is under attack from a fascist GOP and the consequences of losing this fight will be an unimaginable horror for you and your family. But if we can't punch through the right wing propaganda control of information flow, no message will matter.
I agree, and especially with the last paragraph.
Hillary Clinton’s 2020 campaign…2016?
Might you want to share this with Jen Psaki?