Lakoff says "Don't underestimate Trump".

[kentuck]

For those that might miss this:

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/05/02/berkeley-author-george-lakoff-says-dont-underestimate-trump/
<snip>
Lakoff met with Barack Obama when he was still a Senator, and tried to get him to change the terms of the debate more than 10 years ago. When he arrived at the Senate office, he got a round of applause from Obama’s staff and found all of his books in speechwriter John Favreau’s office. But when he gave Obama a copy of his book Thinking Points, Obama immediately handed it off to Favreau. “Obama assumed framing was about messaging, and it was about giving speeches. He is a very good speaker, so …” Lakoff trails off. “Obama did a lot of things right in 2008 when he was running, but then he dropped it. He understood the idea, but he didn’t apply it consistently. I think he believed he could balance both sides, but he wasn’t prepared for the culture wars that he encountered.”

Lakoff believes it’s a mistake for Democratic politicians to move toward the center in an effort to reach more moderate voters. The Republicans have moved further to the right, and they continue to win elections. What Democrats need to do is articulate their message in terms of metaphors that voters can understand, and stick to their core values, Lakoff said.

In terms of messaging, though, he doesn’t believe either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren have it quite right. “Bernie has a schtick,” he said. “He has great goals, I appreciate his goals, but he is very stubborn. He doesn’t understand conservatives or framing, and he isn’t going to change. He’s been successful with what he’s doing, and that’s enough for him,” Lakoff said. “I talked with him several times, with no effect. He wouldn’t remember it, and couldn’t have cared less.”

Elizabeth Warren “has come the closest to articulating the idea about citizens caring about each other and working through government to provide maximum freedom for everybody,” he said. “But Elizabeth has a problem: she is shrill, and there is a prejudice against shrill women. It’s a terrible prejudice, but it’s a prejudice. She has been recognized as one of the most credible presidential candidates by conservatives, and she has been attacked viciously by the right.”


Thanks to elleng for this link:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016184582

[elleng]

1. Thanks for spreading it around, kentuck.

We need all the help we can get.

[Phoenix61]

2. I learned about Lakoff on DU

and have immense respect for him. We really need to listen to what he says.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. A big, fat K&R!

[kentuck]

4. He has some good ideas...

...and Democrats should utilize those that most folks can identify with.

Republicans always prefer to talk about values over issues but Democrats need to learn to frame issues as values, in my opinion.

[dhill926]

5. K & R...

important stuff....we should be able win the war of ideas...but we have to frame for the common man...

[Nonhlanhla]

6. She is shrill?

Geez, funny how every woman with potential presidential aspirations is suddenly shrill...

I agree with much of Lakoff says, but he gets it badly wrong here. People don't have a prejudice against shrill women, and Warren does not happen to be one of those shrill women. Instead, people are prejudiced against women who seek power, and then they call them shrill to justify that prejudice.

[betsuni]

11. +1

[SunSeeker]

16. Yep. This is the first time I ever heard her called "shrill."

Even Trump doesn't call her that. Trump calls her "goofy."

[LuckyLib]

21. He'll get around to it. Give it time.

[JI7]

7. maybe THIS is the real problem

it's not about economics as much as culture and prejudice and a dominant group angry at losing power and having to compete with others.


"Elizabeth has a problem: she is shrill, and there is a prejudice against shrill women"

[Nonhlanhla]

8. Yes, this is indeed the real problem

And sadly, many self-styled progressives are not immune to it.

[JI7]

12. i do give credit to Lakoff for admitting this is a problem

instead of denying it and claiming it's all about economics .

but i think it's the main problem.

just as most of the opposition to the ACA has to do with it being a black man's thing.

of course there are the usual ones with ideological differeces and i put someone like paul ryan in this group. but he isn't even liked by most conservatives who are cultural conservatives rather than fiscal.

[Nonhlanhla]

13. But he does not actually admit the real problem

He says she IS shrill, and that people are against shrill women (and presumably not against "non-shrill" women, who funnily enough always seem to be women who are not ambitious). The problem is that this is not true. Warren is not shrill. She is a woman in a position of power who might in fact seek the highest position of power. People call such women "shrill" as an excuse to dismiss them. The problem is not that people are prejudiced against shrill women. The problem is that people call women shrill when they are prejudiced against them and their ambitions.

[JI7]

14. good points. and warren usually speaks in a calm manner

which shows even more clearly what shrill is actually used to describe.

[pnwmom]

15. The same criticism was also leveled against Hillary, and she wasn't anymore than Elizabeth. nt

[Nonhlanhla]

18. I agree. nt

[betsuni]

10. +1

[msongs]

9. lakoff is a bit too high end and could benefit from being a little more concrete and specific...

tried reading some of this stuff and it is quite theoretical and lacking in ways to implement his theories in real life ways. Unlike that republican guy who is blunt force trauma Luntz (?) dems could use a few "drown it in the bathtub" phrases

[pnwmom]

17. I saw some of his recs that could immediately be used -- like talking about laws providing

"protections" instead of talking about "regulations."

As in "protect" our clean air. "Protect" our clean water. "Protect" our healthcare.

[kentuck]

20. Yep!

Use the good stuff.

Nobody has to like all of the ideas to agree with some of them.

[Snake Plissken]

19. And then there's the media who believes their job is to artificially create a horse race.

Almost all people get 100% of their information from a profit driven media whose focus is ratings; close elections bring good ratings, so it's in their best interest to make elections dramatic horse races.

Since Hilary was significantly up in the polls they did their absolute best to focus on any and all negative stories and fake scandals regarding Hillary to even out the race, while as the same time Trump was coddled and rewarded if he managed to complete a coherent sentence.