How do we create mass appeal when we are a big tent party? Better yet, because we are a big tent party, why don't we have greater mass appeal -- supposedly among those in our tent?
Have we truly carved out a space for new voices and figured out a way to incorporate them: to negotiate a consensus position and find common ground within the ranks?
If this common ground has not been determined, how do you garner enough support to relay a convincing message to a diverse electorate; a message that says that you can respond to their needs with conviction and results? A house needs to be in order before you can move forward.
Young and new voices need to be incorporated, and a space carved out that reflects their issues in a party-agreed framework -- because they are all watching. These individuals aren't low-info. because they are ignorant; they are low-info. because they hear what's up, and they're tuning out what they believe are empty messages. They are angry about it and because of that it becomes easier to turn to grievance messaging.
I believe that when they see a representation of those 'voices of change', in some capacity(e.g. leadership on initiatives), they will be more likely to feel that they are being heard and taken seriously as voters. (Everything is negotiable.)
The Dems don't have the luxury of many European parties with highly defined interests (Green party, Liberals, Socialists, Unionists); however, this is all part of our collective, which includes people of many backgrounds.
Create structures that elevate and promote these voices. I contend that if this can be addressed, this will bring greater ease to your efforts.
What I'm trying to say is that this is not a zero sum game, but rather, a chance to show that diversity works. There's no suggestion of replacing the experience of established voices with the ideas and approaches of new voices but somehow, to meld them to increase the multiplier effects for effective messaging.
For instance, many members of the party have activist backgrounds or particular interests and skill sets that give them a specialization suited to message an issue. These areas cover gun reform (school shootings), immigration (social and economic integration), social welfare (health care) and the economy (living wage, inflation and income disparities), just to name a few. My suggestion is to utilize these voices in structured groupings to develop the messaging -- not just the top-line statement but the crafted tagline and talking points.
I'm not sure how this occurs at the organizational level in the party currently; however, for every message developed, subject matter experts (SMEs) should be providing input (including for rapid response).
I would also suggest that they recommend how, and by whom, the messages should be delivered, at least at the national level.
New voices should be apprenticed to experienced voices to ensure a continuity of leadership. Equally, experienced leaders should embrace newer communication skills and encourage the youth to take on leadership positions within a well-defined party structure.
My message is to use your strengths, reflect your base, use effective targeting and empower new, as well as, experienced voices.
Presented are some of my thoughts on how increasing participation in the messaging process could unfold. It involves setting up an organizational substructure to work with the communications team to refine concensus-based messaging. I am not familiar with the current structure, so forgive any duplications or ommissions. My suggestions originate from some of my prior forum experience.
1. Establish an Triumvirate of chairs representing labor, progressive and moderate interests. They could decide issue areas and working groups with the Comms team. The Comms team would draft up the foundational documents for consideration by members.
2. Establish Councils.
The four councils could represent a) youth members - up to 35yrs, b) labor, c)progressives, and d) moderates. Each council would have a chair and two vice chairs. These would be forums where the members of each group could consider their collective position on issues, if they haven't already been determined.
3. Establish Working Groups.
Each working group would operate as a Triumvirate of 3 co-equal chairs representing labor, progressives and moderates. Three deputy co-chairs targeting youth members of the three factions would be put into place to elevate them to future leadership. The working groups' charge would be to review the communications teams draft text and to develop consensus positions with the other members within their working group.
4. Council and Working group Meetings could be conducted as physical or virtual meetings or by digital comment. The objective is to feed their comments into messaging. There would be no use of voting procedures, only requirements for a deliverable by a date certain. An issue response cannot be withheld or held up; it must reflect the consensus.
5. Deliverables. The output from the working groups would be used in messaging and collateral materials.
The objective is to engender inclusivity and determine mutual vested interests.
Is there anything that would prevent the DNC from establishing a news outlet on Substack? I'm not sure if there are any FCC or FEC rules that would apply.
It could be a vehicle to get out your messages and bolster the messaging of members who already have a prescence on the App.
I just answered my question. You need to raise the profile of your channels. I would have the chair promote them in interviews with MeidasTouch, Adam Mockler, The Contrarian, Adam Kinzinger, The Bulwark and Lincoln Media, for a start.
He could talk about the Dems response to some of their comments on "where is the party?".
Build out your Substack site -- more video, shorter text (more summary briefing style) and follow other news outlets particularly smaller (influencer types) for greater visibility. Engage in conversations on their reporting and be available for interviews. Incorporate licensed music and film excerpts in filmed spots where possible and relevant; Senator Schiff's team does a great job at this and should be used as a benchmark.
Create: Interviews, Spots and Ads
The 'Question Card' Interviews - members receive a card with two questions from a hand (off camera) and speak to the question and why they became a Dem. (5 to 6.5 min spot). The member should know the topic but not the question for an authentic answer. It should be staged in interesting, different and intimate spaces (i.e., cafe, steps of capitol, park bench, interesting corner at a favorite spot).
'Rebuttalmania' Spots
These spots should center on rapid fact checking responses to Republican claims and barbs opening with their claim followed by the suggested film line references (spoken or flashed):
"Look at the big brain on Brad ...Well, let me retort" Rebuttals.(Pulp Fiction)
Or
"Riddle me this Batman" Rebuttals (Batman)
These can be filmed by the Chair and/or members. (2 to 2.5 minutes spots). States issue and their response to it.
This would also provide an opportunity to give members cover from ad hominem attacks. This should be fed into the dailies on Substack.
Chair Spots
Chair introduction to the Democratic party, its history and love of country spot. This should be for better engagement with the American electorate (4 to 5 minutes spot).
Chair's Corner - (3 minutes on any subject)
I would also add Roland Martin and the Black Star Network and Jim Acosta to my earlier post.
I appreciate that you’re listening instead of lecturing. But I want to ask an honest question. What do you actually want us to do with this information?
Because if the takeaway is that we should stop standing up for LGBTQ+ people, for immigrants fleeing violence, for the environment, for voting rights, that’s a non-starter for me.
I’m not going to treat misinformation as a “valid concern” when doing so only reinforces the lies. And it doesn’t build trust. It appears to me that many of the participants’ comments are nothing more than regurgitated lies, right-wing talking points they’ve heard over and over again.
I am willing to change how I talk, though. But I’m not changing what I believe. We can ditch the D.C. buzzwords and speak like neighbors. We can lead with values, name the real villains (billionaires rigging the system), and connect what we’re doing to real life: lower drug costs, higher wages, child tax credits, food on the table, a doctor when you’re sick.
But if the suggestion is that we walk away from the people who need our voices most (trans kids, asylum seekers, low-income families) that’s not going to happen.
We’re not losing because we care about too many people. We’re losing when people don’t know who we’re fighting for or why. That’s a messaging challenge but it isn’t a moral failing.
Maybe I read the entire article all wrong. Maybe you aren’t suggesting what I think you are suggesting. I hope.
I’ll definitely be following along to see what your focus groups and other research uncovers. But for me, this research is most valuable as a guide to where our messaging needs work, not where we need to surrender.
I sincerely hope your findings aren’t used to push Democrats into softening our stance on human rights, fairness, or inclusion under the guise of political pragmatism. That’s not just bad strategy. It’s a dangerous road.
Sacrificing LGBTQ+ people, undocumented immigrants, or anyone else who needs our voices is not a path I’m willing to take.
The clear takeaway from this study is that the people in the focus group believe that the Democrats are prioritizing LGBTQ+ issues and a desire to help migrants who are subject to violence in their native countries over the working poor. They believe the Republicans, who have focused their messaging on hatred of these groups, will treat the Latinos who are here legally better. This is even though Republicans universally oppose increases in the minimum wage and all programs that benefit people who need economic assistance. I take this as a sign that Democratic messaging is the problem - they are talking about small groups that are in deep trouble to the exclusion of much larger groups who the Democrats believe are already on their list as needing help. The Republicans, of course, do everything they can to help this misperception while blaming the small groups for the problems the working poor experience. The Democrats don't need to change their beliefs or goals so much as they need to shift what they say so that this group feels like they are a priority. They also need to be more aggressive in calling out what the real Republican priorities look like.
Yes, a lot to take in at 6:30 but we read it bc we care. You and the article both make valid points. Maybe that’s the trouble, nobody is helping voters understand this. The interviewees were just repeating lies the trumpers have created to divide us. Those lies have become more powerful than the truth. The trumpers have controlled the narrative for decades and Democrats seem to have no unifying message at all and no heart for the fight.
It’s not the Democrats “messaging” it’s that magas, right wingers talking points & Russian disinfo is repeated endlessly while ppl who should be on our side seem to believe it’s someone else’s job to talk about what Democrats represent, and the good works & good policies they accomplish. The last 4 years, I was one of the few who consistently posted what the Biden-Harris admin & their extraordinary Cabinet were doing for all of us. Even when those policies didn’t help me specifically. There are far too many ppl who can’t say one positive thing about Democrats without equivocating. A high info friend of mine constantly posts complaints about magas but she didn’t post that her student loans had been forgiven during the Biden-Harris admin, she told me that privately. And then ppl monologue endlessly without context about “the failures of Democratic messaging”. Democrats are held to an unachievable level of perfection while Republicans are held to none.
I have also over the last 4 years repeatedly asked ppl who say “Democrats messaging is bad” which Democrats they follow? 95% Of the time it’s crickets. I would suggest that our side is not as immune to disinformation as they would like to believe.
I just read your comment again and find I quite agree with you again. I follow Democrats and try to encourage them to be more bold in our defence, to organise our to fight back against this tide of authoritarianism. I still wish we had some leadership, some messaging. The TACO meme is a good start. I find myself even more disappointed w my fellow citizens. I find it natural to care for my fellow humans and the Earth in my own way and just think that others would naturally feel that way too. Not at all true as it turns out. We have a lot of work to do
Overall, this meshes with Mike Madrid’s polling/surveys, particularly that Latinos are focused on cost of living and economic issues as opposed to immigration.
In all of these focus groups, at least some of the participants talk about what Democrats focus on and feel that Democrats don’t focus on them and what’s most important to them.
I had the opportunity to attend the first night of the DNC last August. Obviously, Harris faced a time crunch after such a late start. Which to me would suggest running a tightly focused campaign on the economy, bringing down the cost of housing and making health care more affordable. And that day’s biographical stories focused on her understanding of people’s struggles with financial worries, working late to make ends meet, relying on neighbors for child care, etc. Union leaders also spoke that day to focus on workers.
However they also fit in speeches on reproductive rights, Hillary Clinton’s speech focused on women - “breaking the highest glass ceiling)” and linking Harris to Shirley Chisholm. And then Biden spoke about everything instead of focusing on their economic and wage growth accomplishments. Biden spoke so long lots of people started to leave during his speech. Biden’s speech and the speech showed how much Democrats focus on so many issues and constituencies at the cost of demonstrating how they stand for working people.
GOP outspent Dems by 117 million to 15 million in 2024 on negative immigration related ads.
In July 2024 alone the GOP spent 37 million alone.
The Dems allowed poorly educated, blue collar Latino voters to be overwhelmed by this disinformation.
It's on the Dems. They never fought back. They thought Dobbs was good enough.
Now, they're running from supporting immigrant communities because they've been exposed as posturing do nothings. These qualitative studies are cherry picked to buttress, and absolve themselves from their away from the topic of immigration.
Quantitative studies show very strong support for legalization of long standing,non criminal undocs...,much moreso than Laken Riley type legislation.
Immigration polling and responsiveness are characterized as direcrionally highly thermostatic .
This is a let's "cover our asses" , because we fucked over the immigrant community by ceding the topic of immigration reform to the racist GOP, by listening to David Shor and Blue Rose Consulting - project.
I am glad to see this focus on what Latino voters have to tell the Democratic Party about their turn away from it. At the same time, I agree with earlier comments that we need to call out Republicans on their priorities, and that we cannot abandon the human rights perspective. After all, human rights are fundamental to prioritizing wages, food security, housing, and health, as well as the dire need to unhandcuff legislation. What I have read here echoes Latino views on immigration that I am hearing in my own neighborhood. It’s vital to listen. At the same time, changes in the nature of migration over the decades in view here have a lot to do with the difficulties in working out border policies. This is a global issue. If we as voters ignore it and focus only on the US, don’t we risk continuing just trying to get the vote back in an election, rather than extending our own understanding? Right now, the aim is to change the administration, actually hearing and responding to the needs of working-class people. At the same time, we have to see the elephant in the room. A working class project is a human rights issue, one fundamentally connected to the inability of governments and institutions in the Global North to really take up the climate change problems of the Global South. We can’t afford to choose.
I know that I don't have to ask whether you have your response team at the ready on the budget vote; because, I'm confident that you have the commercial ads, talking points and events pre-planned for this outcome. I'm not worried...right?
The minimum wage is a huge contributor to why people are frustrated. It is keeping people from having a life where they feel secure about tomorrow. We are responsible for the disparities, we turn a blind eye to basic human rights and point the cameras, throw money at the upper class. The upper class could return the favor but do not. Everyone wants safety and security and has every right to that. There is always money for war. There is always money for tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations. There is always money to ignore gun violence. The democrats have not learned that lesson. The democrats are not listening and I suspect we know why. We need term limits. We need to eliminate Citizens United. We need to prioritize quality of life issues for everyone. We need to recognize greed, racism and intolerance in ourselves and the people we choose to represent us. We need to look at countries who have made the effort to improve the quality of life for their entire population not just a chosen demographic. The solutions are all around us. It’s time to insist on change.
One more thing: This is a page from the DNC website: Who we serve. Nothing about serving the working and middle class. You can argue that some of these categories include these economic classes. But you can understand why, white men and women read this and say, "What about me"?
This is instructive. But the solution is not abandoning our values or changing our messaging. It's about what we emphasize. Even more important, it is about what we do or say we'll do once in power.
We cannot let the next 18 months go by without making clear what Dems will do once back in power. The most insightful quote was this:
“I would actually like to see them help enact laws that improve quality of life, like truly. I think that’s my biggest qualm with government in general: I don’t feel like anything changes for the better. We say right wing, left wing, but I think we’re talking about one word: controlled by money.”
For many, government simply doesn't work, except for the rich. Biden's big bills passed but delivered few results due to rules and regulations that many liberals insist on to ensure everyone's agenda is addressed. Identity politics is killing the Democratic party. And the Dems seem to care more about Wall St. than Main St.
The candidate who gets my vote will be the one who sticks their neck out with concrete initiatives directed toward the middle and working class priorities as outlined in this post. We can't be afraid of offending someone.
Regarding what we emphasize, we need to press the media to spend more time covering the economic challenges many Americans face and stopped running articles every time someone of a tiny majority has an ax to grind. It's not Dems who are overemphasizing transgender issues as much as it is the Republicans who win every time an article is published about them.
What laws need to change? What regulations needs to be loosen? What regulations need to be abandoned? As the book "Abundance" points out, it's been liberals who have handcuffed government.
Let's embrace and promote our values, but let's focus on those being left behind economically.
They are literally talking about wanting social programs in here. Which speaks to WANTING socialism. Transgender issues are not socialism. Trump is eliminating social programs AND arresting folks for the crime of being brown. I suspect this has a lot to do with the establishment abandoning sending election resources to these places when the republicans do not. And that is a problem. The border was not and has been open.
How do we create mass appeal when we are a big tent party? Better yet, because we are a big tent party, why don't we have greater mass appeal -- supposedly among those in our tent?
Have we truly carved out a space for new voices and figured out a way to incorporate them: to negotiate a consensus position and find common ground within the ranks?
If this common ground has not been determined, how do you garner enough support to relay a convincing message to a diverse electorate; a message that says that you can respond to their needs with conviction and results? A house needs to be in order before you can move forward.
Young and new voices need to be incorporated, and a space carved out that reflects their issues in a party-agreed framework -- because they are all watching. These individuals aren't low-info. because they are ignorant; they are low-info. because they hear what's up, and they're tuning out what they believe are empty messages. They are angry about it and because of that it becomes easier to turn to grievance messaging.
I believe that when they see a representation of those 'voices of change', in some capacity(e.g. leadership on initiatives), they will be more likely to feel that they are being heard and taken seriously as voters. (Everything is negotiable.)
The Dems don't have the luxury of many European parties with highly defined interests (Green party, Liberals, Socialists, Unionists); however, this is all part of our collective, which includes people of many backgrounds.
Create structures that elevate and promote these voices. I contend that if this can be addressed, this will bring greater ease to your efforts.
Thank you Quinn for the like.
What I'm trying to say is that this is not a zero sum game, but rather, a chance to show that diversity works. There's no suggestion of replacing the experience of established voices with the ideas and approaches of new voices but somehow, to meld them to increase the multiplier effects for effective messaging.
For instance, many members of the party have activist backgrounds or particular interests and skill sets that give them a specialization suited to message an issue. These areas cover gun reform (school shootings), immigration (social and economic integration), social welfare (health care) and the economy (living wage, inflation and income disparities), just to name a few. My suggestion is to utilize these voices in structured groupings to develop the messaging -- not just the top-line statement but the crafted tagline and talking points.
I'm not sure how this occurs at the organizational level in the party currently; however, for every message developed, subject matter experts (SMEs) should be providing input (including for rapid response).
I would also suggest that they recommend how, and by whom, the messages should be delivered, at least at the national level.
New voices should be apprenticed to experienced voices to ensure a continuity of leadership. Equally, experienced leaders should embrace newer communication skills and encourage the youth to take on leadership positions within a well-defined party structure.
My message is to use your strengths, reflect your base, use effective targeting and empower new, as well as, experienced voices.
Presented are some of my thoughts on how increasing participation in the messaging process could unfold. It involves setting up an organizational substructure to work with the communications team to refine concensus-based messaging. I am not familiar with the current structure, so forgive any duplications or ommissions. My suggestions originate from some of my prior forum experience.
1. Establish an Triumvirate of chairs representing labor, progressive and moderate interests. They could decide issue areas and working groups with the Comms team. The Comms team would draft up the foundational documents for consideration by members.
2. Establish Councils.
The four councils could represent a) youth members - up to 35yrs, b) labor, c)progressives, and d) moderates. Each council would have a chair and two vice chairs. These would be forums where the members of each group could consider their collective position on issues, if they haven't already been determined.
3. Establish Working Groups.
Each working group would operate as a Triumvirate of 3 co-equal chairs representing labor, progressives and moderates. Three deputy co-chairs targeting youth members of the three factions would be put into place to elevate them to future leadership. The working groups' charge would be to review the communications teams draft text and to develop consensus positions with the other members within their working group.
4. Council and Working group Meetings could be conducted as physical or virtual meetings or by digital comment. The objective is to feed their comments into messaging. There would be no use of voting procedures, only requirements for a deliverable by a date certain. An issue response cannot be withheld or held up; it must reflect the consensus.
5. Deliverables. The output from the working groups would be used in messaging and collateral materials.
The objective is to engender inclusivity and determine mutual vested interests.
Is there anything that would prevent the DNC from establishing a news outlet on Substack? I'm not sure if there are any FCC or FEC rules that would apply.
It could be a vehicle to get out your messages and bolster the messaging of members who already have a prescence on the App.
The DNC has a substack.
I just answered my question. You need to raise the profile of your channels. I would have the chair promote them in interviews with MeidasTouch, Adam Mockler, The Contrarian, Adam Kinzinger, The Bulwark and Lincoln Media, for a start.
He could talk about the Dems response to some of their comments on "where is the party?".
Here are some suggestions...
Build out your Substack site -- more video, shorter text (more summary briefing style) and follow other news outlets particularly smaller (influencer types) for greater visibility. Engage in conversations on their reporting and be available for interviews. Incorporate licensed music and film excerpts in filmed spots where possible and relevant; Senator Schiff's team does a great job at this and should be used as a benchmark.
Create: Interviews, Spots and Ads
The 'Question Card' Interviews - members receive a card with two questions from a hand (off camera) and speak to the question and why they became a Dem. (5 to 6.5 min spot). The member should know the topic but not the question for an authentic answer. It should be staged in interesting, different and intimate spaces (i.e., cafe, steps of capitol, park bench, interesting corner at a favorite spot).
'Rebuttalmania' Spots
These spots should center on rapid fact checking responses to Republican claims and barbs opening with their claim followed by the suggested film line references (spoken or flashed):
"Look at the big brain on Brad ...Well, let me retort" Rebuttals.(Pulp Fiction)
Or
"Riddle me this Batman" Rebuttals (Batman)
These can be filmed by the Chair and/or members. (2 to 2.5 minutes spots). States issue and their response to it.
This would also provide an opportunity to give members cover from ad hominem attacks. This should be fed into the dailies on Substack.
Chair Spots
Chair introduction to the Democratic party, its history and love of country spot. This should be for better engagement with the American electorate (4 to 5 minutes spot).
Chair's Corner - (3 minutes on any subject)
I would also add Roland Martin and the Black Star Network and Jim Acosta to my earlier post.
That's my two cents.
WOW - That is a lot to take in at 6:30 am.
I appreciate that you’re listening instead of lecturing. But I want to ask an honest question. What do you actually want us to do with this information?
Because if the takeaway is that we should stop standing up for LGBTQ+ people, for immigrants fleeing violence, for the environment, for voting rights, that’s a non-starter for me.
I’m not going to treat misinformation as a “valid concern” when doing so only reinforces the lies. And it doesn’t build trust. It appears to me that many of the participants’ comments are nothing more than regurgitated lies, right-wing talking points they’ve heard over and over again.
I am willing to change how I talk, though. But I’m not changing what I believe. We can ditch the D.C. buzzwords and speak like neighbors. We can lead with values, name the real villains (billionaires rigging the system), and connect what we’re doing to real life: lower drug costs, higher wages, child tax credits, food on the table, a doctor when you’re sick.
But if the suggestion is that we walk away from the people who need our voices most (trans kids, asylum seekers, low-income families) that’s not going to happen.
We’re not losing because we care about too many people. We’re losing when people don’t know who we’re fighting for or why. That’s a messaging challenge but it isn’t a moral failing.
Maybe I read the entire article all wrong. Maybe you aren’t suggesting what I think you are suggesting. I hope.
Thanks for your comment. We hope you keep following along to learn more as we’re listening to working class voters to help inform future policies.
I’ll definitely be following along to see what your focus groups and other research uncovers. But for me, this research is most valuable as a guide to where our messaging needs work, not where we need to surrender.
I sincerely hope your findings aren’t used to push Democrats into softening our stance on human rights, fairness, or inclusion under the guise of political pragmatism. That’s not just bad strategy. It’s a dangerous road.
Sacrificing LGBTQ+ people, undocumented immigrants, or anyone else who needs our voices is not a path I’m willing to take.
The clear takeaway from this study is that the people in the focus group believe that the Democrats are prioritizing LGBTQ+ issues and a desire to help migrants who are subject to violence in their native countries over the working poor. They believe the Republicans, who have focused their messaging on hatred of these groups, will treat the Latinos who are here legally better. This is even though Republicans universally oppose increases in the minimum wage and all programs that benefit people who need economic assistance. I take this as a sign that Democratic messaging is the problem - they are talking about small groups that are in deep trouble to the exclusion of much larger groups who the Democrats believe are already on their list as needing help. The Republicans, of course, do everything they can to help this misperception while blaming the small groups for the problems the working poor experience. The Democrats don't need to change their beliefs or goals so much as they need to shift what they say so that this group feels like they are a priority. They also need to be more aggressive in calling out what the real Republican priorities look like.
Thank you for your perspective! We hope you keep following along to learn more about this project.
Yes, a lot to take in at 6:30 but we read it bc we care. You and the article both make valid points. Maybe that’s the trouble, nobody is helping voters understand this. The interviewees were just repeating lies the trumpers have created to divide us. Those lies have become more powerful than the truth. The trumpers have controlled the narrative for decades and Democrats seem to have no unifying message at all and no heart for the fight.
It’s not the Democrats “messaging” it’s that magas, right wingers talking points & Russian disinfo is repeated endlessly while ppl who should be on our side seem to believe it’s someone else’s job to talk about what Democrats represent, and the good works & good policies they accomplish. The last 4 years, I was one of the few who consistently posted what the Biden-Harris admin & their extraordinary Cabinet were doing for all of us. Even when those policies didn’t help me specifically. There are far too many ppl who can’t say one positive thing about Democrats without equivocating. A high info friend of mine constantly posts complaints about magas but she didn’t post that her student loans had been forgiven during the Biden-Harris admin, she told me that privately. And then ppl monologue endlessly without context about “the failures of Democratic messaging”. Democrats are held to an unachievable level of perfection while Republicans are held to none.
I have also over the last 4 years repeatedly asked ppl who say “Democrats messaging is bad” which Democrats they follow? 95% Of the time it’s crickets. I would suggest that our side is not as immune to disinformation as they would like to believe.
I just read your comment again and find I quite agree with you again. I follow Democrats and try to encourage them to be more bold in our defence, to organise our to fight back against this tide of authoritarianism. I still wish we had some leadership, some messaging. The TACO meme is a good start. I find myself even more disappointed w my fellow citizens. I find it natural to care for my fellow humans and the Earth in my own way and just think that others would naturally feel that way too. Not at all true as it turns out. We have a lot of work to do
Also, thanks for going to south Texas. The political swing towards Republicans there is so important to understand.
Overall, this meshes with Mike Madrid’s polling/surveys, particularly that Latinos are focused on cost of living and economic issues as opposed to immigration.
In all of these focus groups, at least some of the participants talk about what Democrats focus on and feel that Democrats don’t focus on them and what’s most important to them.
I had the opportunity to attend the first night of the DNC last August. Obviously, Harris faced a time crunch after such a late start. Which to me would suggest running a tightly focused campaign on the economy, bringing down the cost of housing and making health care more affordable. And that day’s biographical stories focused on her understanding of people’s struggles with financial worries, working late to make ends meet, relying on neighbors for child care, etc. Union leaders also spoke that day to focus on workers.
However they also fit in speeches on reproductive rights, Hillary Clinton’s speech focused on women - “breaking the highest glass ceiling)” and linking Harris to Shirley Chisholm. And then Biden spoke about everything instead of focusing on their economic and wage growth accomplishments. Biden spoke so long lots of people started to leave during his speech. Biden’s speech and the speech showed how much Democrats focus on so many issues and constituencies at the cost of demonstrating how they stand for working people.
GOP outspent Dems by 117 million to 15 million in 2024 on negative immigration related ads.
In July 2024 alone the GOP spent 37 million alone.
The Dems allowed poorly educated, blue collar Latino voters to be overwhelmed by this disinformation.
It's on the Dems. They never fought back. They thought Dobbs was good enough.
Now, they're running from supporting immigrant communities because they've been exposed as posturing do nothings. These qualitative studies are cherry picked to buttress, and absolve themselves from their away from the topic of immigration.
Quantitative studies show very strong support for legalization of long standing,non criminal undocs...,much moreso than Laken Riley type legislation.
Immigration polling and responsiveness are characterized as direcrionally highly thermostatic .
This is a let's "cover our asses" , because we fucked over the immigrant community by ceding the topic of immigration reform to the racist GOP, by listening to David Shor and Blue Rose Consulting - project.
FWIW: The Party That Cannot Tell You What A Woman is, Mad Men Will Not Vote For Them.https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/the-party-that-cannot-tell-you-what
I am glad to see this focus on what Latino voters have to tell the Democratic Party about their turn away from it. At the same time, I agree with earlier comments that we need to call out Republicans on their priorities, and that we cannot abandon the human rights perspective. After all, human rights are fundamental to prioritizing wages, food security, housing, and health, as well as the dire need to unhandcuff legislation. What I have read here echoes Latino views on immigration that I am hearing in my own neighborhood. It’s vital to listen. At the same time, changes in the nature of migration over the decades in view here have a lot to do with the difficulties in working out border policies. This is a global issue. If we as voters ignore it and focus only on the US, don’t we risk continuing just trying to get the vote back in an election, rather than extending our own understanding? Right now, the aim is to change the administration, actually hearing and responding to the needs of working-class people. At the same time, we have to see the elephant in the room. A working class project is a human rights issue, one fundamentally connected to the inability of governments and institutions in the Global North to really take up the climate change problems of the Global South. We can’t afford to choose.
I know that I don't have to ask whether you have your response team at the ready on the budget vote; because, I'm confident that you have the commercial ads, talking points and events pre-planned for this outcome. I'm not worried...right?
The minimum wage is a huge contributor to why people are frustrated. It is keeping people from having a life where they feel secure about tomorrow. We are responsible for the disparities, we turn a blind eye to basic human rights and point the cameras, throw money at the upper class. The upper class could return the favor but do not. Everyone wants safety and security and has every right to that. There is always money for war. There is always money for tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations. There is always money to ignore gun violence. The democrats have not learned that lesson. The democrats are not listening and I suspect we know why. We need term limits. We need to eliminate Citizens United. We need to prioritize quality of life issues for everyone. We need to recognize greed, racism and intolerance in ourselves and the people we choose to represent us. We need to look at countries who have made the effort to improve the quality of life for their entire population not just a chosen demographic. The solutions are all around us. It’s time to insist on change.
It is amazing to me that people are unaware of what you are finding. I assumed it was common knowledge.
One more thing: This is a page from the DNC website: Who we serve. Nothing about serving the working and middle class. You can argue that some of these categories include these economic classes. But you can understand why, white men and women read this and say, "What about me"?
https://democrats.org/who-we-are/who-we-serve/
This is instructive. But the solution is not abandoning our values or changing our messaging. It's about what we emphasize. Even more important, it is about what we do or say we'll do once in power.
We cannot let the next 18 months go by without making clear what Dems will do once back in power. The most insightful quote was this:
“I would actually like to see them help enact laws that improve quality of life, like truly. I think that’s my biggest qualm with government in general: I don’t feel like anything changes for the better. We say right wing, left wing, but I think we’re talking about one word: controlled by money.”
For many, government simply doesn't work, except for the rich. Biden's big bills passed but delivered few results due to rules and regulations that many liberals insist on to ensure everyone's agenda is addressed. Identity politics is killing the Democratic party. And the Dems seem to care more about Wall St. than Main St.
The candidate who gets my vote will be the one who sticks their neck out with concrete initiatives directed toward the middle and working class priorities as outlined in this post. We can't be afraid of offending someone.
Regarding what we emphasize, we need to press the media to spend more time covering the economic challenges many Americans face and stopped running articles every time someone of a tiny majority has an ax to grind. It's not Dems who are overemphasizing transgender issues as much as it is the Republicans who win every time an article is published about them.
What laws need to change? What regulations needs to be loosen? What regulations need to be abandoned? As the book "Abundance" points out, it's been liberals who have handcuffed government.
Let's embrace and promote our values, but let's focus on those being left behind economically.
Thanks for your comment. We hope you keep following along to learn more as we’re listening to working class voters to help inform future policies.
This is all so freaking exhausting
They are literally talking about wanting social programs in here. Which speaks to WANTING socialism. Transgender issues are not socialism. Trump is eliminating social programs AND arresting folks for the crime of being brown. I suspect this has a lot to do with the establishment abandoning sending election resources to these places when the republicans do not. And that is a problem. The border was not and has been open.