Democratic leadership announced their plans to play the 2013 Katy Perry song “Roar” very loud in response to the aggressive start of President Donald Trump’s second term.
Figure out what they stand for, stated in two sentences. (From that old chestnut that says that you don’t understand a thing if you can’t explain it in two sentences, or less.)
Learn from the experts (PR people, psychologists, neuroscientists, screenwriters, etc.) how to state it in ways that resonate with people.
Then, do it. Convince all of us that they care, and are trying. Build coalitions around the message, and strengthen civil society.
The greatest damage from this administration’s lawlessness does not come from tearing down government agencies, it’s the corrosive effect of hopelessness in the minds and hearts of the citizens as we look around and feel like we’re alone, and that nobody else actually cares about our laws, traditions, and principles.
Because it was so rehearsed and prepared. They needed the opposite, which is what trump and JD Vance did. Podcasts and shows where they just had casual conversations. The experts and linguists and whatever else were a horrible idea.
They need to have rehearsed and prepared talking points because that’s the only way they’ll actually come across as standing for anything other than the status quo, which is deeply unpopular. Most democrats probably don’t even know what they even theoretically stand for without a corporate donor explicitly telling them what to do, and most of them can’t do improv on the level of even being able to make shit up or lie in the absence of that, much less to charmingly lie by omission or tell the truth by technicality.
I’m saying the status quo IS the rehearsed and prepared talking points. Whether they are honest or not, its not what people want, and they dont trust it. Having casual unscripted conversations without restrictions, like trump and Vance did on podcasts, is a great way to appeal to people directly. Theres a reason these podcasts have millions of subscribers.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Harris’s message was along the lines of (from a Lemmy comment, TBF), “address disparate health care outcomes that predominantly impact Black men.” Nobody even knows what that means, much less has the ability to remember it. Or, she had some talking point about a several-thousand-dollar tax credit. (I don’t recall how much or for whom.) That is, they talked like policy wonks, not in terms like “dignity” and “providing for your family” that reach people emotionally.
Their opponents said highly memorable-but-evil things like, “Haitian immigrants are eating the pets.” I mean, like that, but good. Or, when you think of Obama, there’s one word that immediately comes to mind. Like that.
ETA: I just remembered one of Harris’s other leitmotifs for the campaign: “We’re not going back.” Just awful messaging. Democrats constantly, constantly, go for the negative formulation, which is terrible messaging. For one, saying you’re not your opponent lets your opponent control the terms of the debate. Also, our memories and subconscious minds are bad with negatives. Like the famous pink elephant example, if I were to say, “I’m not a professional dogcatcher,” a week from now, you might have the vague recollection of u/SwingingTheLamp and dogcatchers, or maybe just dogs. If I were smart, I’d say, “u/SwingingTheLamp is such a sexy guy” instead.
This particular example doesn’t suffer from that problem, but on the other hand, it doesn’t say anything of importance. So we’re not going back, great, we already knew that, but where are we going? It doesn’t say anything emotionally-impactful about the future and Harris’s role in it. By contrast, “make America great again” is much better slogan, because it makes a promise about the future. And a vague one, so you can seamlessly fill in whatever you think “great” looks like, and you can actually envision a perfectly-tailored picture of the future. Harris == discontent about the past; MAGA guy == good-feels about the future.
What democrats saw from trump is much different than what republicans saw.
For example, her interview on fox, most democrats saw clips of it, rather than watch the whole conversation. Most democrats aren’t aware of just how many podcasts trump went on. Most know about rogan but thats about it.
I agree with how you frame the messaging from democrats, but I dont think it was because they didnt pay the right people to write their slogans, I think it was because all the had were slogans.
Hands down, trump was the more personable candidate, which should be extremely upsetting to the democrats, but instead they have blamed voters for being too stupid to understand they were the good team.
Okay, yeah, I get it now. I think we agree. That’s what I was saying originally, it’s that they skipped Step 1, the part about deciding on the substance behind the slogans.
Figure out what they stand for, stated in two sentences. (From that old chestnut that says that you don’t understand a thing if you can’t explain it in two sentences, or less.)
Learn from the experts (PR people, psychologists, neuroscientists, screenwriters, etc.) how to state it in ways that resonate with people.
Then, do it. Convince all of us that they care, and are trying. Build coalitions around the message, and strengthen civil society.
The greatest damage from this administration’s lawlessness does not come from tearing down government agencies, it’s the corrosive effect of hopelessness in the minds and hearts of the citizens as we look around and feel like we’re alone, and that nobody else actually cares about our laws, traditions, and principles.
They already did number 2, exclusively, and its part of the problem.
“We’re second worst, you have no choice but to vote for us, and we will only move right” might have resonated with you.
They love Republican policy they just hate wearing red as commies have used it before. Blue is a much better fitting color.
They should have to give back their campaign money when they lose.
And not hoard it for themselves to buy private guards? Never. That would actually help America, and the rich don’t like that.
When did that happen? Their messaging is pretty widely regarded as terrible.
Because it was so rehearsed and prepared. They needed the opposite, which is what trump and JD Vance did. Podcasts and shows where they just had casual conversations. The experts and linguists and whatever else were a horrible idea.
They need to have rehearsed and prepared talking points because that’s the only way they’ll actually come across as standing for anything other than the status quo, which is deeply unpopular. Most democrats probably don’t even know what they even theoretically stand for without a corporate donor explicitly telling them what to do, and most of them can’t do improv on the level of even being able to make shit up or lie in the absence of that, much less to charmingly lie by omission or tell the truth by technicality.
I’m saying the status quo IS the rehearsed and prepared talking points. Whether they are honest or not, its not what people want, and they dont trust it. Having casual unscripted conversations without restrictions, like trump and Vance did on podcasts, is a great way to appeal to people directly. Theres a reason these podcasts have millions of subscribers.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Harris’s message was along the lines of (from a Lemmy comment, TBF), “address disparate health care outcomes that predominantly impact Black men.” Nobody even knows what that means, much less has the ability to remember it. Or, she had some talking point about a several-thousand-dollar tax credit. (I don’t recall how much or for whom.) That is, they talked like policy wonks, not in terms like “dignity” and “providing for your family” that reach people emotionally.
Their opponents said highly memorable-but-evil things like, “Haitian immigrants are eating the pets.” I mean, like that, but good. Or, when you think of Obama, there’s one word that immediately comes to mind. Like that.
ETA: I just remembered one of Harris’s other leitmotifs for the campaign: “We’re not going back.” Just awful messaging. Democrats constantly, constantly, go for the negative formulation, which is terrible messaging. For one, saying you’re not your opponent lets your opponent control the terms of the debate. Also, our memories and subconscious minds are bad with negatives. Like the famous pink elephant example, if I were to say, “I’m not a professional dogcatcher,” a week from now, you might have the vague recollection of u/SwingingTheLamp and dogcatchers, or maybe just dogs. If I were smart, I’d say, “u/SwingingTheLamp is such a sexy guy” instead.
This particular example doesn’t suffer from that problem, but on the other hand, it doesn’t say anything of importance. So we’re not going back, great, we already knew that, but where are we going? It doesn’t say anything emotionally-impactful about the future and Harris’s role in it. By contrast, “make America great again” is much better slogan, because it makes a promise about the future. And a vague one, so you can seamlessly fill in whatever you think “great” looks like, and you can actually envision a perfectly-tailored picture of the future. Harris == discontent about the past; MAGA guy == good-feels about the future.
What democrats saw from trump is much different than what republicans saw.
For example, her interview on fox, most democrats saw clips of it, rather than watch the whole conversation. Most democrats aren’t aware of just how many podcasts trump went on. Most know about rogan but thats about it.
I agree with how you frame the messaging from democrats, but I dont think it was because they didnt pay the right people to write their slogans, I think it was because all the had were slogans.
Hands down, trump was the more personable candidate, which should be extremely upsetting to the democrats, but instead they have blamed voters for being too stupid to understand they were the good team.
Okay, yeah, I get it now. I think we agree. That’s what I was saying originally, it’s that they skipped Step 1, the part about deciding on the substance behind the slogans.