When someone begins a post with "The problem with the Democrats is..."

[MineralMan]

I immediately wonder why the post began that way. Then, if the explanation of what the problem with Democrats is uses phrases like "framing" and "political correctness," I wonder about other things.

I'm funny that way.

[TCJ70]

1. I just put "in power" after Democrats because that's usually what people mean...

...depending on the rest of the context. Particularly on this board.

[MineralMan]

2. I try not to put words in people's posts other than the ones they used.

[MineralMan]

4. Yah, OK...

[kydo]

5. Well. yeah, but... the problem with the Democrats is

They like facts, and this endangered thing called truth. In this day and age of fake news, alternate reality, it's tough for people that don't like lies and all that. It can be a problem.

But I agree with you. I tend to avoid those threads. 7 times out of 10 the statement is from a troll/russian bot.

[MineralMan]

6. I hadn't actually quantified it, but you may be right.

During all of 2016, we saw instance after instance of people coming in to tell us what was wrong with "the Democrat party." Those people aren't here in 2018, for the most part. However, as we get closer to the midterm elections, we may see a new influx of posts like that. I hope not, and I hope we won't be diverted from our goals by such nonsense.

[kcr]

7. It usually follows a pattern

You can easily read between the lines. It basically boils down to: "I'm a refreshingly honest apolitical person who happens to be really smart about politics, here to tell you what the Democrat party is doing wrong. And your problem is Real Americans hate your liberal tree hugging PC guts. You just need to sound more like us! -uh, I mean Republicans. They're so much better at messaging. So, here's what you say..."

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. The "Messaging" thing really irks me

Republicans ALWAYS have it easier in terms of their "messaging", because their voters- and a good chunk of the rest of the public- are less informed about politics than us, spend less time than us keeping up with what is actually going on unless it immediately affects us and thus makes it easier for Republicans to lie to them, and thus seem to be more responsive to Republican messaging (i.e. catchphrases) than Democratic messaging (which tends to be less succint and nuanced- IOW "reality&quot . That all being said, polls indicate that the public is generally favorable towards Democrats in terms of support for our policies, so, at least in the abstract, our messaging seems to be getting through to most people. The bigger problem as I see it is that support for Democratic policies doesn't always translate into votes for Democratic candidates when the time comes. They don't always translate into movements. Why is that? I think that most Democrats and Democratic-leaning people aren't as vocal and obnoxious as Republicans and don't vote as reliably as Republicans. Why that is and what we can do to energize and active people to GOTV is the challenge that the Democratic Party needs to focus on, including helping removing barriers to people voting, especially those inclined to vote for us.

[kcr]

9. Very true.

Another thing that strikes me with these particular messengers is the whiff of projection. It's a natural tendency for people to think most others share their views, so this insistence that "Americans think x" is a giveaway.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Right

Unless you're a pollster, nobody really "knows" what most Americans think about any given thing. Republicans doing it drives me up the f**king wall!

[MineralMan]

10. The entire concept of "framing" and "messaging" implies

putting forth things that are not true, but that you want to convince people to believe. "Framing" and "messaging" are what Republicans do to deceive the public.

I don't want us, as Democrats, to use those tools at all. Instead, I want us to say what is factual and true and explain how those things affect us. Republicans don't care about truth or facts. They care only about how to influence people.

I want us to tell the truth and explain it. I want us to win honestly. I will always argue against any other sort of political tactics that do not put truth at the top of the priority list.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. Exactly

"Messaging" and "Framing" makes it sound like we are trying to figure out how to sell something- like a company. Republicans HAVE to figure out how to "sell" their sucky policies because they suck- and sometimes they don't really even care if nobody is actually interested in buying as long as they can ram their stuff through.

[Qutzupalotl]

18. I disagree. Framing does not mean lying.

While it is true the Republicans excel at messaging and framing and do it through lies and half-truths, that does not mean the methods are suspect.

Framing is defining an issue in favorable terms to your side. To be effective, framing and messaging should rely on facts — otherwise they will be dismissed or dismantled. Although Republicans are able to make lies spread using these methods successfully, this is largely due to media ownership, repetition, and willingness of many in media to lie for a cause. Democrats self-police their messages far more than Republicans, so they cannot use deception for long. Since we are at a disadvantage in the media landscape, we have to stay above board. But that does not mean we must abandon framing and messaging. I think our survival depends on mastering these tools and using them ethically to tell the truth and win.

George Lakoff has excellent instructions on how to do this. Unfortunately, he is unwilling to step down as a professor to be our Frank Luntz (but without all the lying). So it is up to us to learn.

[MineralMan]

19. I said it implies lies and half-truths. I didn't say it "means" that.

There is a difference.

I don't want us to "frame" things or use "messaging." I want us to tell the truth in plain English. We don't need trickery to get votes. We need a message, not "messaging."

You might disagree on that. That's fine. But, I will continue to promote truthtelling as the best strategy.

[Qutzupalotl]

20. Framing doesnt even imply lies or half-truths.

As I said, we have to tell the truth. We agree on that.

Having a message and saying it IS messaging. It doesn’t mean anything more than that.

We have known for decades that we do not excel in this field and need to work on it. There was a forum here on DU called “Framing the debate” started by annabanana. Its goal was to counter false narratives and framing from Republicans by using facts. It would be good to search and review what was discussed in this context.

[kcr]

27. The problem is the soft-peddling of the GOP lies as "messaging"

and then claiming it's such a problem that we suck at that and aren't as good and we need to be more like them. People are talking past each other here and arguing over semantics when the truth is the GOP are good at lying. That's why when some people hear the old saw that we need to get better at messaging like the GOP, they hear it as lying. You are technically correct that messaging isn't lying, but we're talking about the GOP.

[peggysue2]

21. One of the few times I disagree with you, MM

Framing and/or messaging is merely the angle at which you present your narrative. Ideally, you want the best frame for the story/narrative/policy to draw in the listener/reader. It should never overwhelm the content but work as an organic part of the idea itself.

The fact that Republicans frequently use framing/messaging to deceive does not mean that the tool is faulty. Anything can be turned into a bamboozling technique; language itself can be weaponized as we've seen over these long, long months.

Yes, I want us to tell the truth, win honestly. Finding the right message/frame is a tool to do that effectively.

[DrDan]

22. exactly - thanks for explaining that well - framing does NOT imply lying or

telling any haft-truths.

We need well-crafted messages and, as others have said, we are not the best at it.

To compound the problem, we often let the GOP frame our messages for us. For example, we are not Pro-Abortion as the GOP continues to state. We are Pro-Choice. The distinction is significant and can easily cost us votes.

[kcr]

23. In the context of politics, I don't blame anyone for any growing distrust in this area

Especially after 2016. I personally don't trust anyone who claims they have a new and improved messaging strategy for Dems when they think DACA is too "PC". I don't think anyone is arguing that broadly speaking, messaging is bad.

[Caliman73]

24. Agreed.

Republican themes are about punching down. They blame immigrants for coming to the US and "stealing jobs" they would not apply to do, rather than looking at those who hire immigrant labor to exploit the cheaper prices. They do not see how American presence in the countries where immigration is coming from facilitates the choice of the desperate to risk everything to come here.

They use themes of resentment, individualism, and rail against institutions that while they are not perfect by any stretch, are designed to uplift and assist those of us who may struggle. Instead Republicans make everything into a commodity that can be pitched, sold, and bought.

It is a lot easier to tear down than to build up. That is the main difference between the Tear down Republican message and the Build up Democratic message.


I do have to say though that there are times when the themes are right there and some of the leadership misses them or refuses to use them. President Obama was able to message effectively, Kennedy, and Clinton. We have some really eloquent people in the Party right now like Joe Kennedy who maybe the future.

[Quixote1818]

12. Sure, but reading the entire post she gave, created an entirely different context in my mind.

You can have a knee-jerk reaction to the first few words or read the entire post for the full context.

[DrDan]

14. she was DOA because of (1) her low post count and (2) she was a registered-indie who voted Dem

Some here branded her simply because of that. She had to "earn her right" to offer suggestions and criticisms and had not been here long enough to do so.

Those posters were simply not in the mood to have an adult conversation with her - instead they pack-attack. They decided to turn away this Dem voter.

[cwydro]

17. Once again you hit the nail on the head.

That thread was ugly to read.

[Quixote1818]

26. Nicely stated. nt.

[MineralMan]

15. I read the entire post. I always read the entire post.

[kcr]

16. Maybe you could explain how the rest of the post changed the context then?

I'm not seeing it.

[Caliman73]

25. I would have to agree there, in most part.

Even if the critique is valid in some instances. People need to consider their words and the surroundings. Maybe I am having an erroneous recall, but I seem to remember a time at DU when people introduced themselves and said what they were about before jumping in on critiques of the party, the message, or whatever.

I would say that framing is important even though it is a word that is now more associated with the likes of Frank Luntz.

Framing is a communication technique. I use it all the time in my line of work. It is the difference sometimes between getting kicked out of someone's home, and being able to stay in to help them be safe.

Democratic messaging is by nature, extremely complicated because we look at a lot of different constituencies and goals that may even be in opposition at times. There are people who do it well and there are some that aren't always so good at it. The use of political correctness however, as a disparagement is usually a concerning element.

[Gothmog]

28. That is a big turnoff for me also