Possibly the most important thing: Dems need to get better at the propaganda wars.

[DanTex]

One frustration I have with the Dems is that they seem to never understand what the GOP knows well. That politics is about propaganda. Most voters are not well informed. Most voters, indeed most people, make decisions based on emotion more than logic. The Democratic and Republican parties are brands, and they need to constantly be cared for and marketed as such. And when people hear things repeated over and over, they tend to believe them.

Here's where someone says "we need to get rid of the DLC Third Way neoliberal corporatists who sold out the working class." That's nonsense. Not only is this a false charge -- Obama has been extremely progressive on policy -- but it misses the point. Politics is about perceptions, not tariff rates. If this were about actual policies, then the Rust Belt wouldn't have voted against the party solely responsible for the continued existence of the US auto industry. You wouldn't have people on Medicare and SS talking about how much they hate government programs.

And as much as I love the guy, Obama gets a big chunk of blame here. Witness the steady loss of downballot races during his presidency. It's a bit of a paradox, because as an top-of-the-ticket politician, I think he's a genius. His speaking ability is basically unparalleled, he inspires people, and he has that ability to convince people he cares about their problems. Obviously, part of the problem is that Hillary doesn't have the same chops -- I think if Obama had run for a third term, he would have won handily.

But Obama's team wasn't very good at all at the larger political game. And we can't be a party that relies on political geniuses like Obama in order to win elections. Dems and surrogates need to be constantly make the case all over the media that the GOP is the party of racism and trickle down economics, the Dems are the party of working people and social justice.

And this point needs to be made in non-subtle, repetitive ways. Alan Grayson (who I am not generally a fan of) memorably said in congress that the GOP's healthcare plan is "don't get sick, and if you do, die quickly." That's the kind of stuff we need.

Because here's what happens. You say that once, and pundits will say "oh, no, that's out of line." But you say it a hundred times, different people say it, and suddenly by sheer force of repetition, it becomes part of the dialog. This is how birtherism, "death panels", and all the rest of the GOP lies get spread. And it just so happens that Grayson is right: the GOP actually wants to kick people out of their insurance, which is in effect a "don't get sick or die quickly" approach to healthcare.

I don't have all the answers, but I do feel strongly that what Dems need to get better at is not fine-tuning their policies. The product we offer is already many times better for all but the wealthiest Americans than what the GOP has. What we need to get better at is marketing.

[hrmjustin]

1. Democrats need to find a handful of issues and pound on it!

Stop the party fighting and just unite around a message.

[FarPoint]

2. We are 10 years behind on this...

Last edited Tue Nov 29, 2016, 12:11 PM - Edit history (1)

They, repugs, now have a monopoly on media...

[hadEnuf]

30. Yes. It's the media.

It's always been the media.

People figured that out in 1949 and introduced the Fairness Doctrine. That's why the RW wanted it gone so bad.

And here we are today.

[McKim]

32. Best Comment of All

Yours is a very important comment. Without the fairness doctrine we have an unfair media.

[Fast Walker 52]

42. I agree-- and welcome to DU!

[annabanana]

3. That's what make America so vulnerable to a third-rate

carnie..

That's why our cupboards are so full of snake-oil and our desks stuffed with deeds to the Brooklyn Bridge.

[DanTex]

5. It's not just America. It's a general human problem.

[The Wielding Truth]

4. This is the absolute truth! It is the Propaganda Campaign that has had control over us since

the loss of the Fairness Doctrine.

[SHRED]

6. Republicans own the media (tv and radio)

Good luck.

[frazzled]

7. Definition of propaganda

Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view

So, you're saying that we need to exaggerate, mislead, or outright lie to strengthen our position? Yes, propaganda can be very successful—until it is exposed as such. It is highly unsavory as well. It's not what I want for my party. We are Democrats because we are honest, truthful, and upstanding.

Propaganda works better on Republicans, because it appeals to their base instincts to begin with. Democrats, as a rule, have better instincts. And remember ... when they go low, we go high. I absolutely reject the idea of stooping to their level.

And no, Alan Grayson is not a good example to put forth for successful speechifying. I realize a lot of people like these knock-down, loud-mouthed types. It hasn't worked so well. There were many cheers for Anthony Weiner and Alan Grayson here for quite a few years because of their flamboyant speech. Both have gone down in flames.

[DanTex]

12. That's pretty much what I'm saying, yes.

Yes, propagandizing doesn't come naturally to liberals because we actually believe in truth. But, look, this is a propaganda war. The stakes are very high, when we lose, like we just did, lots of bad things happen to millions of people.

I also realize that Weiner and Grayson have gone down in flames, but that's for reasons entirely separate from their flamboyant speech.

Besides, I think that congress is the wrong place to be making those kind of flamboyant speeches. It comes off as grandstanding. So maybe Grayson is a bad example, but I think his talking point could have been a successful one. The correct place for blunt attacks on the GOP is in the media, and preferably done by surrogates, not elected officials.

[yodermon]

18. YES, that definition, minus the "biased and misleading nature" part.

You can produce truth-based propaganda. Problem is that wonky, fact-based Democrats think the simple fact of "having the truth on our side" is sufficient remedy to the LIE-based Propaganda of the rightwing and the pliant media.
NO. You need to package it up and sell it and sometimes that looks & smells like PROPAGANDA. If you want a less scary term it's just "effective messaging".

[frazzled]

21. So, yell the truth louder

That makes sense. Ahem.

Look, more people bought the Democratic non-propagandistic truth than did not in this election. And our side yelled out loud and clear against the lies, bigotry, and ignorance of the Trump campaign. Or were we all not listening to those fiery speeches Obama and many others made?

Let's stop self-flagellating and start criticizing the other side, instead of trying to emulate them. I find it at once sad and loathsome that so many fall for the crazy: like that Hillary Clinton and John Podesta were running a child molestation ring out of a pizza shop in D.C. It went all around the world, and many millions of people believe it. There is no way in hell to beat that kind of crazy--unless you go apeshit crazy yourself. Sorry, but you can't beat liars at their own game.

[Ligyron]

34. Yeah,"... gone down in flames." Rather like the Democratic Party did.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

37. Please note that the definition says "especially," not "exclusively,"

of a biased or misleading nature.

Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.
-Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell

Propaganda is a form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels.
-Richard Alan Nelson

Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position.
-Wikipedia

Isn't that what political parties need to do?

[frazzled]

43. And we do a very good job of the positive type of purposeful persuasion

as evidenced by the 2 million plus more votes we got nationally. Messaging is not our biggest problem. The problem is that there are large swaths of the nation that prefer the other side's message, because they harbor resentments based on bigotry, racism, and fear. And they don't want to identify themselves with a party that includes lots of people of color and educated people. They themselves are white and uneducated, and they see our rainbow coalition of minorities and hoity toity intellectuals as repulsive. So yeah, we could raise the populist flag and talk to the uneducated white working class and pretend that the black people and Hispanic people and the professors don't exist and don't matter. But that would be wrong, too: and we could gain some of the workers but lose the rest of us.

Trying to reduce this election to a single parameter, such as messaging, is foolish. A large nexus of factors played into the presidential and state and local elections: from structural issues such as the electoral college math and gerrymandering to media equivalencies and social media and fake news to voter suppression and voter apathy. And then there were the nonvoters and third party voters, which were the biggest problem at all.

We live in perilous times, where right wing positions are predominating not just here but all over the world.

The Democratic Party put on one of the best conventions I've seen in my many years. The messaging was compelling and moving, and was inclusive of every segment of society. Pounding fists and gnashing teeth with fiery bromides and exaggerated promises is not the messaging I want to see.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

53. Not sure why you're talking of "gnashing teeth with fiery bromides and exaggerated promises"

when responding to me. I'm thinking more along the lines of making sure facts get out there.

Sure, lots of Trump voters were uneducated whites, loads were racist, misogynist, etc. But, the numbers were close enough that if we'd got through to those who aren't voting based on a high degree of bigotry but simply misinformation they believed to be true, we could have won.

The RW has a huge, well-funded, sophisticated propaganda machine that has moved many from the middle of the road to the Right hand ditch. The Dems don't put in nearly the intense and sustained effort to make sure the lies are not the only message getting through.

[elleng]

8. They've ignored Professor Lakoff's advice for years.

They have NO excuse.

One example: Lakoff: Why Conservatives Sell Their Wildly Destructive Ideology Better Than Democrats

Where Romney talks morality (conservative style), Obama mainly talks policy. Where Romney reframes Obama, Obama does not reframe Romney. In fact, he reinforces Romney's frames in the first part of his speech by repeating Romney's language word for word -- without spelling out his own values explicitly.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/101632659

[DanTex]

13. Yup. And I'm starting to think that Obama's political genius in a way had the unfortunate

side-effect of letting Dems ignore things like this. Even though they were misplaying the marketing game the whole time, his personal abilities let him win elections anyway, giving a false sense of security.

Put another way, over the last 8 years, Democrats who weren't among the greatest public speakers in American history got clobbered.

[elleng]

17. Yes, something like that.

Hiding in plain sight.

[JSup]

9. Facts and figures...

...sure aren't working. I know we like to think rationally but I think America has moved on to post-rational. Our fake news isn't as good as theirs.

[MadDAsHell]

10. Absolutely, although that isn't a popular opinion on here. Most think "being right" is enough...

and are apparently rabidly opposed to any change whatsoever in messaging or campaigning technique.

However, I suspect much of that rabid opposition is still the Hillary vs. Bernie stuff playing out, and many folks not wanting to admit what (if any) role Clinton played in her own political demise because they're therefore admitting that their "concern trolls" accusations were unfounded and probably hurt the Clinton campaign in the end. Therefore, they feel they have to find someone, anyone, to blame for the loss, besides Hillary, the Democratic Party, or themselves.

If and when the sting of the loss starts to wear out, I'm optimistic DUers will realize how important messaging and framing is, and we'll come together on a more effective operation going forward..

[radius777]

11. Yes, politics is about perception not reality.

Say what you want about Bill Clinton, but he and his team (Carville, Begala) understood how the media works, and the need to fight back against every charge and false narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Room


No other Dem, then or since, aside from maybe Howard Dean, Elijah Cummings, David Plouffe and a few others, seems to get this.

Failure to control the narrative/perception (especially on cable news, which becomes an echo chamber that pumps out political reality) is a political death sentence.

[Nevernose]

49. Bill also had a real talent for simplifying difficult concepts

In language that every Bubba could understand.

Remember his DNC speech from 2012? Where all the commentators were amazed at his ability to go off script, to weave in and out of that prewritten speech, reading the room, improving on it, clarifying difficult passages? No one who didn't have a copy of the speech beforehand could even tell -- we just those that he was a really good publisher speaker. It turns out he wasn't merely good, he was brilliant.

Even more than "it's the economy, stupid," it's "keep it simple, stupid."

[treestar]

14. Yes. Being reasonable, knowledgeable and competent

are apparently not enough for the knuckle draggers who have allowed our country's politics to become entertainment. They are numerous enough to award to most unqualified person on the planet to actually have the nuclear codes. We owe it to ourselves and the people to get tough and learn how to do what it takes.

[Raster]

15. I agree, we need to get better at "the game"...

...we also need to STOP thinking the other side will act in a fair, responsible and gentlemanly manner. THEY WILL NOT. They will fuck us over every chance they get and then chide us for: (1) our gentlemanly manner; and (2) our gullibility.

Today's Democratic Party is the epitome of bringing a knife to a gun fight.

[RonniePudding]

16. Thought provoking

Obama is a Saint in my view so I'm less critical (and objective) of him with regard to downballot problems. For the most part that was a function of an increasingly motivated white electorate who saw white patriarchy beginning to be challenged and in the case of the presidency, crushed in 2008. Your point about propoganda comes into play in the following year, particularly i with the messaging on ObamaCare.

But I lay most of the blame at the feet of the DNC whose job it is to plot long term strategy with regard to party policies and messaging. In my view it wasn't so much of a case of Obama's team not knowing how to manage that, but rather a case of them not being able to manage that war front and the other, larger and vastly more critical governing front, at the same time. This would be a tall task in good times, and even more difficult in the age of obstruction Obama expeeienced.


It's fair to say the Wasserman-Schultz era was an epic dumpster fire.

As to Grayson's messaging on our healthcare system I couldn't agree more. This is not a country that does nuance very well and often I think the party as a whole, and yes even Obama himself, can be too nuanced in how they convey ideas and their objections to GOP policies.

[DanTex]

19. I have a very high opinion of Obama as well. And I agree about the white patriarchy.

But, as president, he was the leader of the party. Yeah, the DNC did a horrible job, but Obama could have cleaned house at the DNC if he wanted. He ran the show.

I don't fault him morally for this, I think he was trying his best. I just don't think the skill of running a full time propaganda/marketing campaign was something he possessed. And the thing is, at least after the 2010 midterms he surely realized something wasn't working. I love the guy, but I think he dropped the ball here.

Basically, the GOP outplayed him. I'm not saying I could do better. But there are people who are good at this, and Dems need to find them and let them loose. We knew the GOP playbook: obstruct everything, then blame Obama for not getting anything done. Also portray him as an outsider and liberals as coastal elitists. Maybe that was such a strong strategy that there was nothing Dems could do about it. But I think we could have done better.

[RonniePudding]

24. The thing is, Obama actually got quite a bit done

Many have posted exhaustive lists of those accomplishments here. What he could not do was deal with his job and the historic race fueled obstruction while also babysitting the DNC. I find it hard to fault him in that.

At some point it was necessary for someone else to step up and that did not happen. They sat on their laurels and believed the "blue wall" bullshit with regard to the presidency and equated being able to raise gobs of cash with building on Obama's policy successes at the state and local levels.

[DanTex]

25. Yes, he did. His first two years were amazing. And even after, in the face of

constant obstruction, he still accomplished a lot.

Like I said, I love the guy, but I think there's some "the buck stops here" in this situation. He was the head of the party, he bears some responsibility.

[yodermon]

20. You say that once, and pundits will say "oh, no, that's out of line."

AND THAT is what Trump *thrived* on. The more outrageous stuff he said, the BETTER.
While Democrats parse their words oh-so-carefully *yawn* makes me so sleepy i can't even fin

[kydo]

22. Well, the biggest thing we need is a media platform.

The myth of a liberal press, is so 1970's.

The media took a sharp turn right in the 1980's.

In the 90's they got the biggest noise box with faux and a legion of ditto heads felt empowered. Joy

Since the 2000's, the media has become more right lean and less about facts and more about ratings.

This trend continued on the radio and in print. By 2010, this crap finally invaded the internet and social media.

Now online you can find left leaning progressive stuff. But even online this crazy right wing mania is trying to take it over.

Yes, there are a few people that are kind of trying to cut through all this toxic waste we call news. But they are just a few and big money controls everything. So they can't talk or risk being fired or much worse, if we continue down this very dark path.

I don't know how we do this but it needs to be done.

No one is challenging orange man on anything! No press conferences. The press doesn't even have access. All these conflicts of interests. His crazy tweeting. His lack of protocol. The dude is making a mockery of everything! And yet no one gives a fuck!

Turn on the tv news or go online to what used to be called credible news outlets. Oh there will be stuff about the shootings. (BTW I don't mean this in a bad way but I have become numb to all this violence. My heart and prayers do go out to those effected. And I am really getting sick of having to do that. Its shouldn't be normal.)

Crap got way off topic. Oh yeah the news. If that shooter would have been a white non-muslim orange man supporter, the news would barley make the front page.

The media acts like all is cool with orange man's behavior. Just imagine if Obama acted like orange man. You think the press would just accept it? No, they would be complaining up and down every air wave. orange man do it, nothing.

We need some type of platform to combat all that garbage.

[Maven]

23. 100% correct. nt

[KittyWampus]

26. I agree. Rational arguments do not win elections. They don't sell products.

They do shockingly little to influence our behavior, no matter what side of the aisle we're on.

Humans react emotionally and respond to symbols subconscious cues.

[DanTex]

29. Yup. Rationality plays an alarmingly tiny role in human behavior.

There are exceptions, for example, physicists analyzing data from particle accelerators do so in a scientific, rational way. But deciding who to vote for is a pretty far cry from that.

[sfwriter]

27. Add microtargeting to this.

You no longer need the echo chamber. You can build one to fit.

[Cary]

28. Republican propaganda is all lies and smears

We can't do that.

[spirald]

31. We need to jam their signal

The right wing propaganda coming through social media is designed to enrage and distract gullible people using fake stories. Perhaps the answer is flooding these channels with plausible sounding sensational fake stories that gullible right-wingers will share, but that target their rage and distrust towards areas not as harmful to democracy or where they will lose credibility with their peers or end up in a circular firing squad. It should be pretty amusing for them to have to try to figure out which fake stories are from their "team" and which ones are plants.

[bucolic_frolic]

33. We have to stand on principles instead of triangulation compromises

Triangulation tries to offend no one while drawing in more people

But it's disingenuine, and it's typically a Clinton/DLC strategy

Trying to attract a few Republicans from the middle by being mainstream
is not working. It gave our base of non-voters no reason to vote

[ffr]

35. Won't work. DEMS CANNOT BE TOLD. Reps can.

Democrats are not programmable, so you cannot create the same RW media empire for the left and expect it to sink in. I certainly don't like to be told how to think, which is why I don't tune in to TV or radio.

Republicans, on the other hand, love validation. They love hearing someone talk and spew propaganda they can eat up. This is why they're so much like mindless drones.

[Turn CO Blue]

36. I agree we need drastic improvemnt in framing, focused messaging and MEMES. Not propaganda. n/t

[Exilednight]

38. For it to work you have to have leaders and spokespeople that the

Masses respond to.

The issue wasn't Hillary's message, it was Hillary's delivery of the message.

[jfern]

39. Actually the David Brock Correct The Record propaganda turned many off

If all the media reports that Bernie Bros threw some chairs, that makes people not trust anything they say any more. The media worked their ass off to earned their low trust ratings this year.

[DanTex]

40. Actual voters don't care about David Brock.

About 0.1% of the electorate has even heard of him. As far as the BOB Riots in Nevada, that was definitely bad optics, and the Democratic Party needs to do a better job of screening delegates to conventions so we don't end up with drunken hooligans throwing chairs and making death threats.

[jfern]

41. Enjoy losing then

[Nevernose]

50. There were no drunken hooligams throwing chairs

I was there. The state party, on behalf of the Clinton campaign, pulled some monumental bullshit in keeping out Bernie delegates and rigging the thing. No one threw any chairs, and no one was drunker than usual for Las Vegas (although if you want to score weed, Bernie supporters are obviously the place t go). Some guy did pick up a chair, though it didn't happen out of the blue; Clinton delegates were every bit as misbehaved as Sanders delegates. Both of these events turned otherwise decent people into monumental assholes; death threats are never, ever acceptable, but they were made by people on both sides.

They had to do this because they ran a bad campaign: if they'd run a good campaign, they wouldn't have lost the county convention and therefore the state convention would have been irrelevant. She won the caucuses fair and square, losing because her shitty campaign screwed up the technicalities (like making sure people went out and voted again).

I "screened" delegates for the county party in Las Vegas before the caucuses (I checked credentials). We can't prevent anyone from being a delegate merely because they're assholes. We verified that they were registered Democrats on the day of the caucus and when they signed in at the county convention; there's simply no way for hundreds of Bernie delegates to show up at the state convention and not already be registered Dems. A delegate purge, however, had been conducted by Clinton supporters in the state party; that's why some of Clinton's own delegates joined the sit down strike. They fed the media a bunch but f but losing and the media ran with it.

She should have won the state anyway, because that's what the caucus-goers (caucasians?) voted for. Because of her campaign's fuck up later, her campaign, trying to save face, ended up smearing Bernie and his supporters. I honestly don't believe, though, that many Bernie supporters really understood how politics is played. It's dirty, and Hillary played hardball. Hopefully we haven't seen the last of her.

[LaydeeBug]

48. No one knows about David Brock, but his work on Anita Hill still resonates

Also, I bet as many people even know about the chair throwing incident.

But casting Hillary as "the establishment" when Bernie's been in DC *even longer* certainly did help Trump frame the narrative that SHE is the establishment and not the KGB/GOP

[jfern]

51. Establishment isn't about how long you've been in DC. Hillary was obviously more establishment.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

44. I just think most people are self-centered.

Republicans have pounced on it with their propaganda.

When people are making minimum wage, they've been told it's the fault of high corporate taxes used to support lazy people on welfare for example.

Look at the many examples of self-absorbed attitudes:
(1) Global warming? I'll keep driving my gas-guzzling HUGE truck because it's safer for me and my family if we're in an accident.
(2) Gun restrictions? So what if having more guns in our society is inherently dangerous? I'm a "responsible gun owner," so why shouldn't I own an assault rifle with a large clip? I won't mow down a bunch of people with it. I live in a rural area where I don't expect gun violence anyway. I'm looking after my own!
(3) Vaccinations? I've heard they MIGHT cause some health issues for me and my family. Never mind that diseases will become more widespread if everyone adopted this attitude. If other people want to be vaccinated or not own guns, then good for me!
(4) What's the problem with private schools? So what if pulling kids out of public schools hurts them? I'm looking after my own kids! Other parents should do the same!
(5) Too many people in the world? I'm making babies... and lots of them! Too bad!
(6) Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed during Bush's invasion? Oh, well. They look different anyway.

On and on.

I even see increased selfishness in more mundane ways. I decided to buy a burrito at Taco Bell the other day and got trapped (due to high curbs and other cars) behind some woman in the drive-through who must've ordered at least $70 worth of food. Instead of being conscientious by walking inside to place her order, allowing her to step aside as other customers were served, she chose the drive-through. Then after several bags of food were transferred through her car's window, she sat there for about two more minutes. I assumed that even more food was on the way. NOPE! She apparently decided to continue blocking the long line of cars behind her as she checked her bags to verify that she got everything. A decent person would have pulled into a nearby parking space to do that.

Is conservative propaganda to blame for these attitudes? Maybe. I'm not sure.

I'd really like to know HOW countries like Germany convince their citizenry to take fewer work hours to help keep employment high. Are they just more united as a people compared to people here, or do their liberal-minded politicians present a more convincing message that it's good for everyone? Another example is their universal healthcare. I heard several years ago on NPR that it's paid by a flat-rate income tax (I think around 8%) on everyone. 8% of zero is zero, so people with no income pay nothing. On the other hand, their most wealthy citizens pay a LOT. Can you imagine the arguments if we adopted something similar here? We'd have super-rich people, and their propagandists, arguing that it was UNFAIR for them to pay so much when there was little chance they'd ever get back what they paid into the system through healthcare benefits!

[frazzled]

45. I guess yelling louder does work

“I’m sorry, Jeannie, your answer was correct, but Kevin shouted his incorrect answer over yours, so he gets the points.”

[JSup]

46. Some things we're probably not willing to do...

...I know I'm not.

We need to talk about the online radicalisation of young, white men - The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/15/alt-right-manosphere-mainstream-politics-breitbart

‘Alt-right’ online poison nearly turned me into a racist - The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/28/alt-right-online-poison-racist-bigot-sam-harris-milo-yiannopoulos-islamophobia

These are the kinds of things that almost worked on me whilst I was 'seeing what the enemy was up to' a few years ago. Just having an open mind and empathy (being able to see things from someone else's point of view) can be dangerous in this brave, new world.

[LaydeeBug]

47. Yep. Some will call 'em Trump Chumps, some will call them "alt right" some say neo-fascist

And they all say "Crooked Hillary" in unison.

We would be saying, "eskew Hillary" and 5,000 other monikers, so none resonate.

We need to stop this.

Because while each is creative and shows flare, it doesn't STICK.

PS. Rudy Giuliani fucked his cousin. (That isn't nice to some cultures that include cousin fuckers along with some Americans, including FDR, but you can believe it *STICKS*, and that's all that counts.

[alarimer]

52. Absolutely this.

Get rid of the focus-grouped positions and ads and get real.