I truly enjoyed participating in today's launch of the 'Working Class' review session.
I agree with Mr. Landrieu that we've moved away from our strengths of direct engagement with voters. I would attribute it to 'the politics of maximising the spend' and targeting without local leadership. Now, I say all this, as an observant voter (with a little bit of experience).
Campaigns appear to have moved to robo calls and commercials for their outreach and it just doesn't feel the same -- and keep in mind that you already have my attention. In the 12 years since I've been back from abroad, I have never seen a single candidate or canvasser. So, I can only imagine how others feel.
It had always been working knowledge (a long time ago) that people were more likely to turn out for candidates who reached their door. So, I would have mine write a personal handwritten note or personally sign batches of lit, that the candidate, field workers or the canvassers would drop. Having a bulk mail delivery doesn't achieve the same ends.(And yes, it can be done at the presidential level.)
As for the candidate, I think people want someone who can command the room; yet focus on and engage an individual ( think Clinton, Biden, Obama). I think that they want someone who people will follow (e.g. exudes leadership (quiet or assertive), someone who is deliberative and witty- think Mexican president Sheinbaum 80+ approval rating).
Ultimately, they need to believe that the candidate has their back, even if they don't have shared experiences.
As for delivering a message, I believe that all candidates should be open to, and encouraged to take sessions to review their oratory and engagement skills. It's not uncommon.
Speaking metaphorically, everyone wants to ride in the flashy red sports car with spoilers and low suspension, rather than the 7- seater blue mini van. It's only when the red sports car breaks down, and the blue mini van has to go pick them up, that people appreciate the reliability. To my mind, that's been the endless cycle of Rep. - Dem. presidential transfers over the last 50 years.
-- I'd say that our wins have been most significant when we've had a big programmatic plan, which was self-defining (i.e., the New Deal, the Marshall Plan, Peace Corps, Civil Rights, etc.).
-- What I read from your respondents is that they want decisiveness, direction and their vested interests taken into account. It appears to me that they want a unified message delivered through a single individual with commanding knowledge of the programming that will lift them out of their condition, whatever that may be. Someone who speaks plainly and explains the game and shares with them how we can help them achieve their goals. They don't want to see the divisions and fractures.
-- The Republicans are good at associative wordplay, case in point, 'woke'. The Dems have got to flip that script. Since there are certain connotations for their wealth connections, reformulating certain phrases such as "tax the rich" might be expressed as "luxury tax" and "for lowering taxes" use "lowering working class taxes". This might help in targeting the 'excessive' wealth messaging and buttress supporting the working class.
I think a great deal of this is a result of a better messaging and a non-stop propaganda machine. The Republicans have a communication plan which has been in place for years. They have been teaching their constituents what to believe for years. The Democrats suck at messaging and are terrible at showing how the Republicans are lying. Democrats are also horrible at showing the results of how Trump's "strengths" and actions are hurting working class people. Why are we not running ads showing how decimating NOAA will lead to delayed or no warnings of tornadoes and severe weather, leading to deaths, how layoffs of employees working at public lands will mean that those lands will be closed to camping and tourists, that will then cause towns nearby to lose that tourist revenue, possibly devastating their local economies across the US.
Democrats should have educated the country with an emphasis on working-class voters about the Chips act, the American Rescue Act, and the Infrastructure Bill and how those helped local communities, created jobs and how the vision of the Democrats was to continue those kinds of initiatives to create even more local jobs.
We should have been hitting back all along, turning their culture wars against them, making them into weaknesses, like some Democrats are starting to do now. One I recently saw was "There are more kids who have died from measles in Texas than Trans athletes in collegiate sports, yet the Republicans continue to focus on the non-issue." That was the gist of it anyway. This kind of messaging could have been done all along in tv, radio and online ads, making the Republican party look foolish for focusing on these non-issues instead of issues that working people care about, taxes, housing, etc. and getting the message out that the Dems were serious about core issues.
While talking to the working class, I suggest asking them what exactly they would like to see. What are the jobs they want? Are they willing to move for a much better job? Forcing them to suggest solutions is one way to engage in a meaningful conversation.
I truly enjoyed participating in today's launch of the 'Working Class' review session.
I agree with Mr. Landrieu that we've moved away from our strengths of direct engagement with voters. I would attribute it to 'the politics of maximising the spend' and targeting without local leadership. Now, I say all this, as an observant voter (with a little bit of experience).
Campaigns appear to have moved to robo calls and commercials for their outreach and it just doesn't feel the same -- and keep in mind that you already have my attention. In the 12 years since I've been back from abroad, I have never seen a single candidate or canvasser. So, I can only imagine how others feel.
It had always been working knowledge (a long time ago) that people were more likely to turn out for candidates who reached their door. So, I would have mine write a personal handwritten note or personally sign batches of lit, that the candidate, field workers or the canvassers would drop. Having a bulk mail delivery doesn't achieve the same ends.(And yes, it can be done at the presidential level.)
As for the candidate, I think people want someone who can command the room; yet focus on and engage an individual ( think Clinton, Biden, Obama). I think that they want someone who people will follow (e.g. exudes leadership (quiet or assertive), someone who is deliberative and witty- think Mexican president Sheinbaum 80+ approval rating).
Ultimately, they need to believe that the candidate has their back, even if they don't have shared experiences.
As for delivering a message, I believe that all candidates should be open to, and encouraged to take sessions to review their oratory and engagement skills. It's not uncommon.
Those are my two cents. Thank you.
Thank you for your note and for participating!
Speaking metaphorically, everyone wants to ride in the flashy red sports car with spoilers and low suspension, rather than the 7- seater blue mini van. It's only when the red sports car breaks down, and the blue mini van has to go pick them up, that people appreciate the reliability. To my mind, that's been the endless cycle of Rep. - Dem. presidential transfers over the last 50 years.
-- I'd say that our wins have been most significant when we've had a big programmatic plan, which was self-defining (i.e., the New Deal, the Marshall Plan, Peace Corps, Civil Rights, etc.).
-- What I read from your respondents is that they want decisiveness, direction and their vested interests taken into account. It appears to me that they want a unified message delivered through a single individual with commanding knowledge of the programming that will lift them out of their condition, whatever that may be. Someone who speaks plainly and explains the game and shares with them how we can help them achieve their goals. They don't want to see the divisions and fractures.
-- The Republicans are good at associative wordplay, case in point, 'woke'. The Dems have got to flip that script. Since there are certain connotations for their wealth connections, reformulating certain phrases such as "tax the rich" might be expressed as "luxury tax" and "for lowering taxes" use "lowering working class taxes". This might help in targeting the 'excessive' wealth messaging and buttress supporting the working class.
I appreciate all of your efforts. Go Dems!
Is it simply a function of their information sources that their beliefs do not align with reality?
Great question! We hope you keep following along to learn more about this project.
I think a great deal of this is a result of a better messaging and a non-stop propaganda machine. The Republicans have a communication plan which has been in place for years. They have been teaching their constituents what to believe for years. The Democrats suck at messaging and are terrible at showing how the Republicans are lying. Democrats are also horrible at showing the results of how Trump's "strengths" and actions are hurting working class people. Why are we not running ads showing how decimating NOAA will lead to delayed or no warnings of tornadoes and severe weather, leading to deaths, how layoffs of employees working at public lands will mean that those lands will be closed to camping and tourists, that will then cause towns nearby to lose that tourist revenue, possibly devastating their local economies across the US.
Democrats should have educated the country with an emphasis on working-class voters about the Chips act, the American Rescue Act, and the Infrastructure Bill and how those helped local communities, created jobs and how the vision of the Democrats was to continue those kinds of initiatives to create even more local jobs.
We should have been hitting back all along, turning their culture wars against them, making them into weaknesses, like some Democrats are starting to do now. One I recently saw was "There are more kids who have died from measles in Texas than Trans athletes in collegiate sports, yet the Republicans continue to focus on the non-issue." That was the gist of it anyway. This kind of messaging could have been done all along in tv, radio and online ads, making the Republican party look foolish for focusing on these non-issues instead of issues that working people care about, taxes, housing, etc. and getting the message out that the Dems were serious about core issues.
Thank you for your perspective! We hope you keep following along to learn more about this project.
While talking to the working class, I suggest asking them what exactly they would like to see. What are the jobs they want? Are they willing to move for a much better job? Forcing them to suggest solutions is one way to engage in a meaningful conversation.
"Working class voters see Trump and Republicans as strong, with a known agenda, while Democrats are seen as weak and ineffective."
How can this be, when Chuck Schumer wrote a STRONGLY-WORDED LETTER just the other day? SMH
Well, they do believe him but they don't understand that it will affect them negatively.
Thank you for your perspective! We hope you keep following along to learn more about this project.