I’m wondering about the message that you point to as most popular to working class voters. It seems like the only part of that message that really resonated, at least in the quotes you provide, is that part that says, “We need to get back to rewarding hard work, by paying people what they’re worth . . . “. The rest of it, about billionaire influence over the economy isn’t mentioned. I would not be all surprised to know that it was primarily that one part that resonated. And that would be important. Can you say more about this?
Thanks for your question, Jon! In our ongoing research, the message, "We need to get back to rewarding hard work, by paying people what they're worth, and making it possible to get good education and good health care" has been one of the messages voters resonate with the most but we are continuing to listen to working class voters to help inform future policies. We hear you on the point regarding billionaires and we will hopefully be releasing more information about this soon.
I really appreciated your observation, especially about which part of the message seems to resonate most. I’m working on grassroots messaging with working-class audiences in a red state, and I’ve seen the same thing. The “reward hard work” language hits people in the gut. That’s what they’re feeling.
I do think there’s room to talk about inequality or a “rigged system,” but only when it’s clearly tied to people’s everyday experience, like prices going up while corporate profits soar. If it feels abstract or like a political slogan, it loses them.
So I totally agree. Dignity and fairness are the emotional core. That’s where we can build trust. Thanks again for raising it!
I think that you should draw inspiration from Teddy Roosevelt and 'The Square Deal' for messaging. The U.S. dealt with these very same trust busting issues in the early twentieth century (i.e., robber baron industrialists, trusts and monopolies). It should have wide appeal because the U.S. antitrust regime was established by measures secured by this Republic president. He focused on conservation, corporate law and consumer protection and believed that unchecked power was detrimental to the public interest. You'll find terms that can be used like: stock jobbers, predatory wealth, wage slavery, trust busters, etc. that were coined at the time. It sounds like they need to be reactivated.
My jaw dropped when I just saw a post from North Carolina Governor John Stein on BlueSky RAVING about the fact that Amazon was coming to Richmond County, NC. Stein (by the way) I saw as one of the stars of the Democratic Party.
Even I know that Amazon is anti-union, has destroyed Main Street businesses, has a terrible safety record, and as I recall, gives preference to certain companies to the detriment of small businesses who use their platform. Bezos has damaged irreparably the reputation of the once proud Washington Post. And this somehow is unimportant to Stein and/or unknown to him?
This is incredibly helpful. Thank you. So much of the research on working-class voters stops short of what messengers actually need. But this takes it a step further and shows what’s working.
I’ll be drawing directly from these findings as I develop future messaging. It really reinforces what I’ve come to believe through trial and error: “corruption” is baked in for a lot of folks and doesn’t move them.
But economic dignity, healthcare security, and rewarding hard work? That still resonates.
The wording "letting the rich get richer" is far too passive for what is in this bill. The better phrasing would be "helping the rich get richer" as that is what the bill does.
I’ve been following along now since you popped up and while you wring dry the results of your research, you might consider not spending more money. You have your answers but you keep second-guessing—like you don’t trust it because it’s simple. Or maybe because you know simple doesn’t mean easy.
1. If a potential or established candidate doesn’t know the difference between authenticity and performed authenticity, this is the WRONG CANDIDATE.
2. If a potential or established candidate doesn’t know their state and/or communities beyond party activists and fund-raisers and the movers/shakers at the country club and CofC, this is the WRONG CANDIDATE.
3. If a potential or established candidate believes they have to have a standardized set of comments that”push all the correct buttons” and adhere to the current “party line” this is the WRONG CANDIDATE.
4. Okay, you’ve weeded out the obvious losers. So now, if a potential or established candidate is self-confident, truthful, and consistent without being afraid to change their mind, if they can articulate WHY they want to hold this position and how they will meet the goals articulated to them by their constituents, this may just be the RIGHT CANDIDATE.
5. If a potential or established candidate knows how to LISTEN and is willing to travel to every corner of their district or state, take notes, and develop an action plan for their time in office to accomplish what the citizens want, if they take the time to develop good and useful people to help them, this just might be the RIGHT CANDIDATE.
6. If a potential or established candidate speaks publicly and privately with consistency and honesty, without hackneyed and tired boiler plate repeated in all of their media channels, if their talk reflects what they’re hearing and if they are determined to stand up where and when their constituents want and need them to stand up, if they can straightforwardly and simply answer their constituents with promptness, this just might be the RIGHT CANDIDATE.
That’s all you need. It’s a LOT, but you need to quit slicing and dicing and dithering and means testing and purity testing. Quit fixating on one or another slice of the electorate or one or another answer to what issue “really matters.”
If you find a candidate that can meet these six descriptions, even imperfectly but with honest intention, nothing else will matter. Let them shine and they will be elected.
I’m wondering about the message that you point to as most popular to working class voters. It seems like the only part of that message that really resonated, at least in the quotes you provide, is that part that says, “We need to get back to rewarding hard work, by paying people what they’re worth . . . “. The rest of it, about billionaire influence over the economy isn’t mentioned. I would not be all surprised to know that it was primarily that one part that resonated. And that would be important. Can you say more about this?
Thanks for your question, Jon! In our ongoing research, the message, "We need to get back to rewarding hard work, by paying people what they're worth, and making it possible to get good education and good health care" has been one of the messages voters resonate with the most but we are continuing to listen to working class voters to help inform future policies. We hear you on the point regarding billionaires and we will hopefully be releasing more information about this soon.
I really appreciated your observation, especially about which part of the message seems to resonate most. I’m working on grassroots messaging with working-class audiences in a red state, and I’ve seen the same thing. The “reward hard work” language hits people in the gut. That’s what they’re feeling.
I do think there’s room to talk about inequality or a “rigged system,” but only when it’s clearly tied to people’s everyday experience, like prices going up while corporate profits soar. If it feels abstract or like a political slogan, it loses them.
So I totally agree. Dignity and fairness are the emotional core. That’s where we can build trust. Thanks again for raising it!
I think that you should draw inspiration from Teddy Roosevelt and 'The Square Deal' for messaging. The U.S. dealt with these very same trust busting issues in the early twentieth century (i.e., robber baron industrialists, trusts and monopolies). It should have wide appeal because the U.S. antitrust regime was established by measures secured by this Republic president. He focused on conservation, corporate law and consumer protection and believed that unchecked power was detrimental to the public interest. You'll find terms that can be used like: stock jobbers, predatory wealth, wage slavery, trust busters, etc. that were coined at the time. It sounds like they need to be reactivated.
Looking at the comments of one of the members, I had two thoughts:
1. Terminology reframing:(Addressing 'Democratic Elite' with 'MAGA 1 Percenters')
Call them:
'the MAGA billionaire 1 percenters'
or
'Trump's billionaire dark money doners'
2. Possible 5 Point Mission Statement
The Democrats believe in:
-- the foundation of individual liberty,
-- the priority to limit unmerited intrusions into the personal conduct of ones life,
-- ensuring a level playing field for economic independence,
-- ensuring a level playing field for educational opportunity, and
-- to ensure equitable, measured and appropriate social welfare and national security frameworks to support and serve all Americans.
(Then layout your program for 'The American Marshall Plan' or 'The New Square Deal'.)
My jaw dropped when I just saw a post from North Carolina Governor John Stein on BlueSky RAVING about the fact that Amazon was coming to Richmond County, NC. Stein (by the way) I saw as one of the stars of the Democratic Party.
Even I know that Amazon is anti-union, has destroyed Main Street businesses, has a terrible safety record, and as I recall, gives preference to certain companies to the detriment of small businesses who use their platform. Bezos has damaged irreparably the reputation of the once proud Washington Post. And this somehow is unimportant to Stein and/or unknown to him?
This is why Democrats lose elections & why the Working Class Project has a HUGE hill to climb. https://bsky.app/profile/ncgovernor.bsky.social/post/3lqsjpwtyuk2h
This is incredibly helpful. Thank you. So much of the research on working-class voters stops short of what messengers actually need. But this takes it a step further and shows what’s working.
I’ll be drawing directly from these findings as I develop future messaging. It really reinforces what I’ve come to believe through trial and error: “corruption” is baked in for a lot of folks and doesn’t move them.
But economic dignity, healthcare security, and rewarding hard work? That still resonates.
And we need to be shouting it!
Thanks for the comment! We agree!
The wording "letting the rich get richer" is far too passive for what is in this bill. The better phrasing would be "helping the rich get richer" as that is what the bill does.
I’ve been following along now since you popped up and while you wring dry the results of your research, you might consider not spending more money. You have your answers but you keep second-guessing—like you don’t trust it because it’s simple. Or maybe because you know simple doesn’t mean easy.
1. If a potential or established candidate doesn’t know the difference between authenticity and performed authenticity, this is the WRONG CANDIDATE.
2. If a potential or established candidate doesn’t know their state and/or communities beyond party activists and fund-raisers and the movers/shakers at the country club and CofC, this is the WRONG CANDIDATE.
3. If a potential or established candidate believes they have to have a standardized set of comments that”push all the correct buttons” and adhere to the current “party line” this is the WRONG CANDIDATE.
4. Okay, you’ve weeded out the obvious losers. So now, if a potential or established candidate is self-confident, truthful, and consistent without being afraid to change their mind, if they can articulate WHY they want to hold this position and how they will meet the goals articulated to them by their constituents, this may just be the RIGHT CANDIDATE.
5. If a potential or established candidate knows how to LISTEN and is willing to travel to every corner of their district or state, take notes, and develop an action plan for their time in office to accomplish what the citizens want, if they take the time to develop good and useful people to help them, this just might be the RIGHT CANDIDATE.
6. If a potential or established candidate speaks publicly and privately with consistency and honesty, without hackneyed and tired boiler plate repeated in all of their media channels, if their talk reflects what they’re hearing and if they are determined to stand up where and when their constituents want and need them to stand up, if they can straightforwardly and simply answer their constituents with promptness, this just might be the RIGHT CANDIDATE.
That’s all you need. It’s a LOT, but you need to quit slicing and dicing and dithering and means testing and purity testing. Quit fixating on one or another slice of the electorate or one or another answer to what issue “really matters.”
If you find a candidate that can meet these six descriptions, even imperfectly but with honest intention, nothing else will matter. Let them shine and they will be elected.