I think it’s Jonathan Rauch I was listening to on a recent podcast who was making the argument that one overarching message the Dems should be hammering home is that Trump is the “most corrupt president ever” and that he only acts in his own interests—not ours— and that because of this we are being harmed in many ways (we should list all the harms).
Seems good to me. First of all, it’s true. And, as I think he argues, voters do absolutely hate the idea of them being hurt as a consequence of his corrupt behavior. There are too many examples of this name. But that makes it a great theme.
If they need a meme or a theme to gain attention and let it sink in, “Commander in Thief” isn’t a bad start. Again, I think it’s Rauch that argues, they should never say his name without calling him “the most corrupt president ever Donald Trump” or “Commander in Thief Donald Trump.”
Trump’s own use of disparaging nicknames has arguably been quite effective for his purposes. Why not have the Dems take it out for a spin?
IIRC, during the 2024 campaign, PSA and many others hammered quite a bit on the theme that Trump was the most corrupt president ever, and only in it for himself. Incredibly and u
nfortunately that message has yet to prove persuasive enough.
TACO is an unserious message in serious times. The Dem machine coalescing around it does not surprise me, but I expect more from them in these terrifyingly serious times.
MessageBox is awesome, Dan. If only our elected folks would read and follow:)
I'm not a big fan of the TACO meme. Yes it was amusing, but like everything else the Democratic machine touches, it becomes very cringe, very fast and loses all its power. The message is that Trump is stealing your identity, your health care, and is going to cost you money.
And Dan, as an English teacher who just finished grading a massive pile of 10th grade lit analysis essays, the typos and proofreading errors in this message box hurt my already addled brain.
Thanks for bringing up the typos and lack of proofing. I didn’t want to be the first person to say it, but they make the piece less in every way. I respect the opinions and helpful arguments Dan presents; these make it hard to offer him and the positions as a serious knowledge-base.
I'm a messaging guy (just had a very successful training seminar with Connections lab -- a Lakeoff-sanctioned framing shop -- last night, in which we hated on TACO) but I'm shifting my perspective a little in organically emerging themes. From a pure framing perspective, "taco" should be suspected because we love tacos, and tacos fire happy neural structures in our brain before you've even consciously realized you've heard to word "taco," so when we go "trump ~ taco" in any combo we get a little taco-drivin happyrush.
On the other hand that should apply to "no kings" as well, because as a society (though many individuals will pretend or claim otherwise) we actually like kings and royalty in various demented ways, but "No Kings" will be the name given to the largest mass movement in American history next Saturday.
I'm not convinced of your "no" argument since the argument itself is wonky and requires numbers and reference to charts and complex situations to explain.
A key element with "taco" is the "c," so any use of it could be enhanced with a direct reference to chickens or an indirect "buk-buk-buk." And since volunteers wearing chicken suits is part of our political gestalt (thanks, The West Wing) and rubber chickens from the sky are part of our irony landscape (thanks Groucho), the chickens get to do extra work for us.
People are going to be wearing TACO hats at the upcoming demonstration. I've already seen the prototypes. Move over pussyhat, make room for the taco.
Totally agree with you on taco but disagree on kings. We may have positive associations with royals or princesses or whatnot, but I feel like an aversion to kings is hardwired into the American DNA.
That could be true, but that is not necessarily how framing works. (Aside from the fact that "hardwiring" and "DNA" are metaphors and not neurobiology.) I think that No Kings has emerged organically, and that allows it to break the rules of good messaging and still be good, but I won't go along with the idea that references to royalty are universally or in the majority negative frames for Americans until I see some research that proves it. We certainly have a wide range of reactions to that trope. Point being: "No Kings" as a good message is logical. Framing doesn't serve over conscious logic, but rather, the underlying neurobiology. If that layer of our behavior was logical, therapists would all be out of business, PTSD could not be a disorder, and we would all voting rationally.
I was in fact speaking in metaphor, as I have no credentials in neuro. And I was basing my contention on my own personal reaction and gut feelings, using them as a proxy for others' -- though I realize that's not evidence-based and that everyone isn't me. If evidence were collected on the subject, I'd certainly be interested in it and would defer to it.
Thank you. I'm all in with "TACO," but "NO KINGS" might be the worst miss-the-point slogan I've seen in my long lifetime. I'm still trying to find out what little cabal came up with it.
I think the “No Kings” messaging probably came from the Indivisible groups. And I think the impetus for it came from the onslaught of executive orders and “decrees” from the beginning of this administration, which have slowed a bit as they’ve moved into other tactics. IMO it’s not horrible messaging; it highlights his narcissism and authoritarian tendencies. I have my own personal reservations about it as a resident of Hawaii Island, where many native Hawaiians are rightly resentful of the U.S. government’s suppression of their monarchy. Hawaii *does* still honor a monarchy, including on a couple state holidays. Maybe in recognition of that, the posters for the Hilo protest on 6/14 say “Trump is not a King”.
Thanks for this, I HATE this messaging. It is wimpy, unserious, ad hominem instead of directed at how dire this all is, and it encourages him to be worse. It should be jettisoned immediately.
Let me rant a bit more. Whoever came up with this sounds like a little bully on the playground challenging another to fight. Its just a jab at the guy. Ridiculous. If this is what the Dem leadership has, we will never, ever recover. We need SERIOUS messaging. What will it take to wake people up? Not this!
Dan, thanks for articulating something that’s been needling me too about this meme. It was fun for a couple days, but it’s past time to move on. I’m concerned that it encourages people to dismiss Trump’s capacity for destruction in more areas than just tariffs. No one should expect him to “chicken out” on his authoritarian impulses.
Agree. And it also suggests that we’d like him better if he stuck to his guns more, whereas in fact we WANT him to rescind his destructive policies (on so many issues, not just tariffs). It’s the wrong message about who he is and what we want.
Democrats should be cautious about focusing campaign attacks on issues like tariffs or egg prices that may resolve before the election. While these topics can resonate with voters in the short term—especially when prices are high or economic pain is fresh—they risk losing impact when conditions improve.
For example, as inflation cools and tariffs are lifted, Republicans could claim credit, weakening Democratic arguments.
Instead, Democrats might gain more by emphasizing long-term issues tied directly to Republican leadership—such as corruption, the chaos sewn everyday by incompetent cabinet officers, the threats to public health and safety caused by cartoonish government officials, the continued assault on reproductive rights, climate inaction, and the lawless and over-zealous deportations (focusing especially on the American citizens and longtime community members who have been caught up). These are less likely to fluctuate and carry practical, moral, and structural weight. That said, Democrats shouldn’t completely ignore economic pain points; they can tie them to broader themes like corporate greed or policy mismanagement.
Ultimately, using issues with lasting relevance, rather than fleeting frustrations, can help avoid blowback and maintain credibility with voters over the full campaign
cycle.
Besides, humor can backfire, enflaming MAGA voters.
Everything we do backfires because you are always "talking down" to MAGA voters. Well--there is a reason for that--but all the same--that is a likely result.
I was really expecting to read an additional point about the potential of TACO egging him into even more aggressive authoritarian behaviors, which to me is the biggest risk of calling the commander in chief of the world’s strongest military a “chicken”. We all know he wants martial law. Why risk egging him on? I say leave this one to the non-partisan financial sector. It’s better coming from them anyway because that’s a group he wants respect from, so it’s harder for him to directly fight back against it.
I think the taco meme was hood for a day of mild chuckles, but it’s already sort of worn out and its longevity has already been answered.
So what charge that we level against Trump would have the ability to get under his skin and work as a campaign theme (my opinion, but painfully cringe Lincoln Project humor does more to piss off and motivate his cult members than any possible good).
So what accusation works best, chaos or corruption? My choice would be to lead with chaos/incompetence. I think we call out the incompetence of his government and detail how it hurts people. RFK Jr and measles (believe me, there will be plenty more), Trump’s own management of tariffs and the tax bill, Noem and Homan’s thuggish and ham-handed deportations, Rubio’s gutting of aid to starving snd sick children, Duffy’s mismanagement of ATC, Hegseth’s disastrous turn as SecDef.
And the chief incompetent, the hapless and sad-sack Blunderer-in-Chief.
The charges have to come thick snd fast, from the failed DOGE that cost more money than it saved to the cost to human life that his Caninet idiots caused.
A great way to develop and then sharpen this message is the shadow cabinet idea someone came up with. A serious snd consequential person “appointed” to each position—no future political candidates, no current elected officials.
Can you imagine a “Treasury Secretary” Mark Cubsn eviscerating Bessant and Trump for their economic management? Or an “AG” Sally Yates criticizing Bondi? Or a Christopher Wray criticizing Noem and Homan?
I have been skeptical about the TACO "campaign" from the start for the reasons Dan describes--and because I am among those who really don't care if something "offends" Trump." We cannot be afraid of him in that way. Even so, it is obvious that this vindictive human being will seize on TACO to do something even more outlandish--more on the brink. We don't need that. Moreover, it could backfire in the messaging by implying that the tariffs are not so bad because Trump always backs off--he "chickens out." That is not what we want to have stick. Finally, although it is "fun" there is nothing fun about Dictator Trump and his nasty regime. Trump is determined to hurt all political opponents, but also all the most vulnerable, and least able to defend themselves, in America. I guess somehow teasing the press media into asking "TACO questions" is a distraction we really don't need. They should be asking about the economy, the attack on higher education, the xenophobia, the vaccine hysteria, and the crushing of the poor so the rich can get a huge tax cut at our expense. I wish the press would spend more time on those questions.
I thought the Baby Trump Balloon was one of the most effective zingers yet. Also, the cartoons in European media that showed baby Trump with with shitty diapers smearing shit on everything he touched, were great. As fast as TACO Trump goes, if it punctures his tough guy veneer, it seems useful. I'd suggest floating it synonomously for chickening out; Trump tacos every time Putin glares at him, Trump's bonespurs were his typical taco, when Trump taco'd off to his bunker, etc.
It's a funny thing for the most online of people. But if you don't pay attention to the news you're not going to get it. Surely, this can't be the Dems message. I've been so disappointed in voters who just don't seem to care that the president is a liar, corrupt, a bumbling idiot, cruel to others, etc. as long as they think their lives are better. So, it can't just be that he is corrupt or incompetent. It has to be that it is costing the voter something.
Honestly, we've spent months trying to come up with a unified message when there are certain Dem politicians who just seem to get it right away. But if we have to arrive at a message by committee and then poll test how authentic it sounds, we're doomed.
I think it’s Jonathan Rauch I was listening to on a recent podcast who was making the argument that one overarching message the Dems should be hammering home is that Trump is the “most corrupt president ever” and that he only acts in his own interests—not ours— and that because of this we are being harmed in many ways (we should list all the harms).
Seems good to me. First of all, it’s true. And, as I think he argues, voters do absolutely hate the idea of them being hurt as a consequence of his corrupt behavior. There are too many examples of this name. But that makes it a great theme.
If they need a meme or a theme to gain attention and let it sink in, “Commander in Thief” isn’t a bad start. Again, I think it’s Rauch that argues, they should never say his name without calling him “the most corrupt president ever Donald Trump” or “Commander in Thief Donald Trump.”
Trump’s own use of disparaging nicknames has arguably been quite effective for his purposes. Why not have the Dems take it out for a spin?
IIRC, during the 2024 campaign, PSA and many others hammered quite a bit on the theme that Trump was the most corrupt president ever, and only in it for himself. Incredibly and u
nfortunately that message has yet to prove persuasive enough.
But the corruption message needs to be repeated every day and all day long.
I think you reference HRC.? Because she’s not well-liked, she’s not a great messenger. The right message still needs the right messenger.
? HRC was not running in ‘24. Nor was she a prominent messenger. Not sure why the need to take that jab.
IIRC means if I recall correctly.
Woah—mystery solved. Thanks brother!
TACO is an unserious message in serious times. The Dem machine coalescing around it does not surprise me, but I expect more from them in these terrifyingly serious times.
MessageBox is awesome, Dan. If only our elected folks would read and follow:)
I'm not a big fan of the TACO meme. Yes it was amusing, but like everything else the Democratic machine touches, it becomes very cringe, very fast and loses all its power. The message is that Trump is stealing your identity, your health care, and is going to cost you money.
And Dan, as an English teacher who just finished grading a massive pile of 10th grade lit analysis essays, the typos and proofreading errors in this message box hurt my already addled brain.
Thanks for bringing up the typos and lack of proofing. I didn’t want to be the first person to say it, but they make the piece less in every way. I respect the opinions and helpful arguments Dan presents; these make it hard to offer him and the positions as a serious knowledge-base.
I'm a messaging guy (just had a very successful training seminar with Connections lab -- a Lakeoff-sanctioned framing shop -- last night, in which we hated on TACO) but I'm shifting my perspective a little in organically emerging themes. From a pure framing perspective, "taco" should be suspected because we love tacos, and tacos fire happy neural structures in our brain before you've even consciously realized you've heard to word "taco," so when we go "trump ~ taco" in any combo we get a little taco-drivin happyrush.
On the other hand that should apply to "no kings" as well, because as a society (though many individuals will pretend or claim otherwise) we actually like kings and royalty in various demented ways, but "No Kings" will be the name given to the largest mass movement in American history next Saturday.
I'm not convinced of your "no" argument since the argument itself is wonky and requires numbers and reference to charts and complex situations to explain.
A key element with "taco" is the "c," so any use of it could be enhanced with a direct reference to chickens or an indirect "buk-buk-buk." And since volunteers wearing chicken suits is part of our political gestalt (thanks, The West Wing) and rubber chickens from the sky are part of our irony landscape (thanks Groucho), the chickens get to do extra work for us.
People are going to be wearing TACO hats at the upcoming demonstration. I've already seen the prototypes. Move over pussyhat, make room for the taco.
Totally agree with you on taco but disagree on kings. We may have positive associations with royals or princesses or whatnot, but I feel like an aversion to kings is hardwired into the American DNA.
That could be true, but that is not necessarily how framing works. (Aside from the fact that "hardwiring" and "DNA" are metaphors and not neurobiology.) I think that No Kings has emerged organically, and that allows it to break the rules of good messaging and still be good, but I won't go along with the idea that references to royalty are universally or in the majority negative frames for Americans until I see some research that proves it. We certainly have a wide range of reactions to that trope. Point being: "No Kings" as a good message is logical. Framing doesn't serve over conscious logic, but rather, the underlying neurobiology. If that layer of our behavior was logical, therapists would all be out of business, PTSD could not be a disorder, and we would all voting rationally.
I was in fact speaking in metaphor, as I have no credentials in neuro. And I was basing my contention on my own personal reaction and gut feelings, using them as a proxy for others' -- though I realize that's not evidence-based and that everyone isn't me. If evidence were collected on the subject, I'd certainly be interested in it and would defer to it.
Thank you. I'm all in with "TACO," but "NO KINGS" might be the worst miss-the-point slogan I've seen in my long lifetime. I'm still trying to find out what little cabal came up with it.
I think the “No Kings” messaging probably came from the Indivisible groups. And I think the impetus for it came from the onslaught of executive orders and “decrees” from the beginning of this administration, which have slowed a bit as they’ve moved into other tactics. IMO it’s not horrible messaging; it highlights his narcissism and authoritarian tendencies. I have my own personal reservations about it as a resident of Hawaii Island, where many native Hawaiians are rightly resentful of the U.S. government’s suppression of their monarchy. Hawaii *does* still honor a monarchy, including on a couple state holidays. Maybe in recognition of that, the posters for the Hilo protest on 6/14 say “Trump is not a King”.
Yes--not a fan. But I am protesting this Saturday anyway.
Because you don’t like it, it came from a cabal?
It might have been that judge.
You are probably right. Sigh.
I love these posts but could you please get someone to proof read them?
Thanks for this, I HATE this messaging. It is wimpy, unserious, ad hominem instead of directed at how dire this all is, and it encourages him to be worse. It should be jettisoned immediately.
Let me rant a bit more. Whoever came up with this sounds like a little bully on the playground challenging another to fight. Its just a jab at the guy. Ridiculous. If this is what the Dem leadership has, we will never, ever recover. We need SERIOUS messaging. What will it take to wake people up? Not this!
It makes you feel small.
And he loves this kind of thing. Irritating him is petty and backfires. We address the people, not him.
Absolutely. (Would love to kick him in the shins though).
Him and VP Waterford and the rest of the idiot commanders!
Dan, thanks for articulating something that’s been needling me too about this meme. It was fun for a couple days, but it’s past time to move on. I’m concerned that it encourages people to dismiss Trump’s capacity for destruction in more areas than just tariffs. No one should expect him to “chicken out” on his authoritarian impulses.
Agree. And it also suggests that we’d like him better if he stuck to his guns more, whereas in fact we WANT him to rescind his destructive policies (on so many issues, not just tariffs). It’s the wrong message about who he is and what we want.
Democrats should be cautious about focusing campaign attacks on issues like tariffs or egg prices that may resolve before the election. While these topics can resonate with voters in the short term—especially when prices are high or economic pain is fresh—they risk losing impact when conditions improve.
For example, as inflation cools and tariffs are lifted, Republicans could claim credit, weakening Democratic arguments.
Instead, Democrats might gain more by emphasizing long-term issues tied directly to Republican leadership—such as corruption, the chaos sewn everyday by incompetent cabinet officers, the threats to public health and safety caused by cartoonish government officials, the continued assault on reproductive rights, climate inaction, and the lawless and over-zealous deportations (focusing especially on the American citizens and longtime community members who have been caught up). These are less likely to fluctuate and carry practical, moral, and structural weight. That said, Democrats shouldn’t completely ignore economic pain points; they can tie them to broader themes like corporate greed or policy mismanagement.
Ultimately, using issues with lasting relevance, rather than fleeting frustrations, can help avoid blowback and maintain credibility with voters over the full campaign
cycle.
Besides, humor can backfire, enflaming MAGA voters.
Everything we do backfires because you are always "talking down" to MAGA voters. Well--there is a reason for that--but all the same--that is a likely result.
I was really expecting to read an additional point about the potential of TACO egging him into even more aggressive authoritarian behaviors, which to me is the biggest risk of calling the commander in chief of the world’s strongest military a “chicken”. We all know he wants martial law. Why risk egging him on? I say leave this one to the non-partisan financial sector. It’s better coming from them anyway because that’s a group he wants respect from, so it’s harder for him to directly fight back against it.
Yes. We should worry about this, even as we must be willing to offend Trump.
I think the taco meme was hood for a day of mild chuckles, but it’s already sort of worn out and its longevity has already been answered.
So what charge that we level against Trump would have the ability to get under his skin and work as a campaign theme (my opinion, but painfully cringe Lincoln Project humor does more to piss off and motivate his cult members than any possible good).
So what accusation works best, chaos or corruption? My choice would be to lead with chaos/incompetence. I think we call out the incompetence of his government and detail how it hurts people. RFK Jr and measles (believe me, there will be plenty more), Trump’s own management of tariffs and the tax bill, Noem and Homan’s thuggish and ham-handed deportations, Rubio’s gutting of aid to starving snd sick children, Duffy’s mismanagement of ATC, Hegseth’s disastrous turn as SecDef.
And the chief incompetent, the hapless and sad-sack Blunderer-in-Chief.
The charges have to come thick snd fast, from the failed DOGE that cost more money than it saved to the cost to human life that his Caninet idiots caused.
A great way to develop and then sharpen this message is the shadow cabinet idea someone came up with. A serious snd consequential person “appointed” to each position—no future political candidates, no current elected officials.
Can you imagine a “Treasury Secretary” Mark Cubsn eviscerating Bessant and Trump for their economic management? Or an “AG” Sally Yates criticizing Bondi? Or a Christopher Wray criticizing Noem and Homan?
Just a solid idea.
I have been skeptical about the TACO "campaign" from the start for the reasons Dan describes--and because I am among those who really don't care if something "offends" Trump." We cannot be afraid of him in that way. Even so, it is obvious that this vindictive human being will seize on TACO to do something even more outlandish--more on the brink. We don't need that. Moreover, it could backfire in the messaging by implying that the tariffs are not so bad because Trump always backs off--he "chickens out." That is not what we want to have stick. Finally, although it is "fun" there is nothing fun about Dictator Trump and his nasty regime. Trump is determined to hurt all political opponents, but also all the most vulnerable, and least able to defend themselves, in America. I guess somehow teasing the press media into asking "TACO questions" is a distraction we really don't need. They should be asking about the economy, the attack on higher education, the xenophobia, the vaccine hysteria, and the crushing of the poor so the rich can get a huge tax cut at our expense. I wish the press would spend more time on those questions.
It doesn’t help. Go after the policies not the person. Failed in 2016 and 2024, nearly failed in 2020. Who are Democrats and what do we stand for
I thought the Baby Trump Balloon was one of the most effective zingers yet. Also, the cartoons in European media that showed baby Trump with with shitty diapers smearing shit on everything he touched, were great. As fast as TACO Trump goes, if it punctures his tough guy veneer, it seems useful. I'd suggest floating it synonomously for chickening out; Trump tacos every time Putin glares at him, Trump's bonespurs were his typical taco, when Trump taco'd off to his bunker, etc.
I'm with you Trump=Baby.
The whining, the tantrums, the shit everywhere.
It is more encompassing that TACO.
And it can be understood by everyone even if they watch Fox and are oblivious to the TACO meme.
Not everything is binary. We can do both. Over analyzing a laugh is part of the Democrats’ problem. Try channeling a little political Duke Ellington.
It's a funny thing for the most online of people. But if you don't pay attention to the news you're not going to get it. Surely, this can't be the Dems message. I've been so disappointed in voters who just don't seem to care that the president is a liar, corrupt, a bumbling idiot, cruel to others, etc. as long as they think their lives are better. So, it can't just be that he is corrupt or incompetent. It has to be that it is costing the voter something.
Honestly, we've spent months trying to come up with a unified message when there are certain Dem politicians who just seem to get it right away. But if we have to arrive at a message by committee and then poll test how authentic it sounds, we're doomed.
A note: There were LOTS of typos in this Message.
Please continue to be a sane and professional voice in these turbulent times
A Friend of the Pod