PDA

View Full Version : The Democratic Party's Biggest Problem is Messaging


progrimm
09-04-2010, 11:35 AM
Or better said, it's failure in messaging.

From a progressives perspective.

For the last several decades the Democratic Party has completely failed to effectively express it's positions, and more importantly, properly attack the policies of their opponents, and in their failure to do this they have created even bigger, seemingly unrelated problems for themselves.

Take the healthcare debate as a prime example, the act of recission has killed, "Or as I would say murdered by spread sheet" thousands of Americans, Americans like 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, who died after CIGNA denied her a liver transplant calling it "too experimental"

As while all other developed countries governments throughout the world either rigorously regulate healthcare, or completely control it, eliminating the sick idea that there should be some middle man (In this case private health insurers) that can (more efficiently?!) manage and decide who gets what treatment because they are motivated by profit! "Because to keep your company growing and profiting you need to keep your customers happy" so it all works out in the end.

But it doesn't work out that way, as while our government run Medicare program spends an efficient 98% of every dollar on actual medical care, the private insurance industry spends a mere 70 to 85% of each dollar on actual medical care (With instances where it was as low as 50% of every dollar in the individual market) (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/)

So why does the free market fail here?

A lack of regulation, if you are paying 3000 dollars a year for healthcare and you need some thyroid pills to stay alive, no problem! The cost of those pills is far less than the cost of your annual payments for your healthcare, but if you get an expensive form of cancer that will costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat, well recouping that, and then some over the course of your remaining life, will probably be impossible. Which is where regulation comes in, because if a health insurer concludes it's more profitable to let you die, (lawsuits and all things considered) why not!

And what do you know! The Republican Party in it's Ayn Rand, deregulation, free market wisdom doesn't believe in the laws, rules, regulations that would stop these corporations from essentially taking an Americans money and leaving them for dead when it appears they will no longer be profitable.

Hence you get the case of Nataline that I mentioned earlier.

To be blunt, the Republicans vision for healthcare in this country promotes murder, or I should say "attempted murder" as most people who are denied a life saving surgeries, treatments, families go into medical bankruptcey to get their loved ones the treatment they need,
which is why in 2007 the United States of the 1.6 million bankrupceys 60% of them were Medical bankruptcies (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/) while in countries like France there were virtually no medical bankruptcies, and here's the kicker, 80% of those who filed for medical bankruptcey HAD health insurance!


My point is from any rational point of view is, that the Republican Party's vision of a low regulation, for profit, private health insurance industry is both nonsensical and evil (and the rest of the developed world overwhelmingly agrees) yet the Democrats, in my opinion, failed miserably in the healthcare messaging war of last fall, and several other messaging wars of the last several decades, simply because they have refused to call a spade a spade.

With the exception of Alan Grayson and a few others the Democrats that can call it like it is are nowhere to be found.

To Quote Robert Reich
The Democrats are reactive at best – notwithstanding the worst string of corporate outrages since the robber barons rampaged in the late nineteenth century. Consider what the public has witnessed over the last year -- the greed and wild recklessness of BP, Goldman-Sachs, Big Pharma, health insurers, and large profitable businesses that continue to lay off millions. Where are the political thought strategists that connect these dots and illuminate these stories and thereby shape a Democratic agenda for the future? Nowhere.

And this, in turn has created for them an even bigger problem, corporatist Democrats, better known as Blue Dogs and New Democrats who completely undermind what the democrats base wants them to stand for, (the middle class!)

How so? Well think about it, if you can't even attack and define your opponents on an issue like healthcare how are you possibly going to do that with politicians within your own party that are far to the right of your base?

You simply won't be able to, and they haven't been able to.

Now I've pointed out that I believe they failed miserably in messaging, but you still don't see where I'm going or perhaps just want a clearer picture of what I mean.

Well just take a look at this healthcare ad I wrote, read it, and think back to the fall 2009 healthcare debacle and how differently it may have turned out if the Democrats messaging was this harsh.

Death Dealers
_
I refer to them as death dealers
(((Camera looking at a gravestone: a card of death falls in front of grave))
Narrator:
You pay for your health care for years and they cover the cheap stuff without much hassle, prescriptions, check ups, but then disaster hits. Your child gets leukemia, your wife gets breast cancer.
They deny your care, cancel your policy, it's called rescission and it has resulted in far more deaths than nine eleven, left millions of families ruined, bankrupt.
Because the Republican party doesn't believe in the regulations that would have stopped insurance companies from rescinding care.
Doesn't believe in the rules that stopped Wall Street greed
-that kept oil companies in check
So they removed them and
-Our economy collapsed
-Unmeasurable environmental damaged ensued and
(((Camera pans up - Reveals narrator as family member of person whose grave he is standing in front of (lays flowers?") )))
My Son died when his operation was denied by our health insurer
disaster, death it's what happened when they put the wealth of a few before the safety of the rest
It's what happens when you vote Republican
END


So how do they solve this problem? Well they don't, they won't because that corporatist wing of the Democratic Party I talked about is today, such large part of their party, that the leaders of the Democratic Party are unwilling to address the problem.

Hence the only way this problem will ever be solved is if the activists take control of the messaging from their inept leaders and start running ads like this one I spent alot of time producing
Republican Deregulation Attack Ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gclEjjCDTZA)

progrimm
09-04-2010, 11:37 AM
Dammit wrong Party's in my title! Can't change it :( can one of you mods fix it please.

gonzomax
09-04-2010, 11:54 AM
This is America, We have been convinced we are different, that we can stand on our own. We do not need collective solutions. Of course heath companies and insurance companies don't feel such restraints.They act collectively all the time.. It increases profits and control. But we are tough individualists ,ripe for the picking arguing against each other as we pay more for less.

DanBlather
09-04-2010, 11:59 AM
The problem with America is that it includes the south. It basically makes almost any progress impossible.

marshmallow
09-04-2010, 12:16 PM
Or better said, it's failure in messaging.

From a progressives perspective.


You got it wrong at the second line. The Democrats are not interested whatsoever in progressive policies, whatever those are. They are fundamentally a center-right party. Their main constituents are the financial and pharmaceutical sectors. Secondary to that are the usual military actors.

"But they could..."

No, they really don't care. After you dispose of the party's marketing vehicle your cultural background predisposes you to the absurdity of partisan politics in this country will become apparent. If you don't want to do that you can continue to believe that Democrats are, against all historical evidence, an egalitarian peace party, and be continually disappointed and confused.

TriPolar
09-04-2010, 12:21 PM
Is there a 'Democrats are good at messaging' side to this debate?

davidm
09-04-2010, 12:21 PM
but I would add that another part of the problem is the messaging skill and dishonesty of their opponents.

The Republicans/insurance companies kept throwing out nonsense like "death panels" and the Democrats were then faced with the choice of letting it hang there or wasting time and resources debunking it.

They supported the death panel nonsense by deliberately misrepresenting parts of the bill, leaving Democrats with the task of giving long dry explanations of advance directives and end-of-life medical decisions. In the messaging wars, those long dry discussions lose out to sound bites like "government death panels, booga booga!"

What's the answer to this? Some people say just ignore it and put out our own sound bites, maybe "corporate death panels", etc. but that might just make people afraid of any solution and cause them to turn off from the discussion altogether. I don't know what the solution is.

John Mace
09-04-2010, 12:30 PM
Welcome to this MB. Just so you know, we've done this a million times. If only the Democrats had the right PR, they would sweep into power permanently. Yeah, right. The US is not a "progressive" nation, and if the Democrats push a progressive agenda, they'll lose the conservative wing of their party, and become the minority once again.

What got the Democrats into their current position was the anti-Bush backlash. But the thing is, a lot of those Democrats that got elected in traditionally Republican districts or states can't afford to toe the progressive line. To the extent that they do, they risk losing in the next election. Add to that a bad economy, and whoever is in power is going to be at risk.

BTW, anyone who decries "death panels", but has no problem saying the Republicans are attempted murderers needs to take a good long look in the mirror.

godix
09-04-2010, 12:36 PM
The biggest problem with the democrat party is that it is political. Favors have to be repaid, influence has to be peddled, fringes have to be appeased, compromises have to be made, egos have to be stroked, and all the other things that go along with politics. Americans tend to have a Mr Smith Goes to Washington ideal on how politics should be, so seeing the reality of what politics is often pisses off Americans.

Another big problem for the democrats is that the health care talking points boiled down to 'Insurance companies are evil, so we'll mandate that everyone buy from them...' They did a good job of demonizing the insurance companies, at least in part because there really is a lot to demonize about them, then turned around and handed them a government enforced customer base. I know I wasn't the only one that thought that was facepalm worthy.

As for the rest, any argument that says it's opponents are actively seeking to kill people is pretty much automatically a stupid argument. It was a stupid argument when democrats were accused of death panels, and it's a stupid argument here where republicans are accused of being murderers. It is possible that people can disagree without either side being murders, evil, or whatever other crap talk gets slung around.

davidm
09-04-2010, 12:37 PM
Welcome to this MB. Just so you know, we've done this a million times. If only the Democrats had the right PR, they would sweep into power permanently. Yeah, right. The US is not a "progressive" nation, and if the Democrats push a progressive agenda, they'll lose the conservative wing of their party, and become the minority once again.

What got the Democrats into their current position was the anti-Bush backlash. But the thing is, a lot of those Democrats that got elected in traditionally Republican districts or states can't afford to toe the progressive line. To the extent that they do, they risk losing in the next election. Add to that a bad economy, and whoever is in power is going to be at risk.

BTW, anyone who decries "death panels", but has no problem saying the Republicans are attempted murderers needs to take a good long look in the mirror.Was that last sentence a response to me? Have I claimed that Republicans are attempted murderers? And why exactly should I take a look in the mirror? :confused:

John Mace
09-04-2010, 12:42 PM
Was that last sentence a response to me? Have I claimed that Republicans are attempted murderers? And why exactly should I take a look in the mirror? :confused:
Did you read the OP?

To be blunt, the Republicans vision for healthcare in this country promotes murder, or I should say "attempted murder"...
Your post wasn't even up there as I typed mine. But, since you said "I agree" with the OP, presumably, without qualification, you tell me. Do you actually agree?

davidm
09-04-2010, 01:03 PM
Was that last sentence a response to me? Have I claimed that Republicans are attempted murderers? And why exactly should I take a look in the mirror? :confused:
Did you read the OP?

To be blunt, the Republicans vision for healthcare in this country promotes murder, or I should say "attempted murder"...
Your post wasn't even up there as I typed mine. But, since you said "I agree" with the OP, presumably, without qualification, you tell me. Do you actually agree?I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I don't literally agree that they're guilty of attempted murder. Some (not necessarily just Republicans) may be guilty of not caring if policies result in unnecessary death, but that's not really the same as attempted murder.

My point was that I agree with the overall idea that the Democrats have a messaging problem, not that I literally agreed with every word of the very lengthy OP. I can see where that may not have been clear.

That said, maybe I'm just being dense, but I still don't understand your point about people who decry "death panels" but accuse Republicans of being attempted murderers. Why should they look in the mirror? Are they themselves members of death panels or are they themselves attempted murderers?

Chronos
09-04-2010, 01:05 PM
BTW, anyone who decries "death panels", but has no problem saying the Republicans are attempted murderers needs to take a good long look in the mirror. The "death panels" that Republicans rail against are people in some back room that decide whether someone should live or die based on how much they're worth. That is indeed as reprehensible as the Republicans make it out to be. The problem is that that's the system we have right now, which the Republicans are defending and the Democrats are trying to do away with.

John Mace
09-04-2010, 01:09 PM
BTW, anyone who decries "death panels", but has no problem saying the Republicans are attempted murderers needs to take a good long look in the mirror. The "death panels" that Republicans rail against are people in some back room that decide whether someone should live or die based on how much they're worth. That is indeed as reprehensible as the Republicans make it out to be. The problem is that that's the system we have right now, which the Republicans are defending and the Democrats are trying to do away with.

The point I was making was that "death panels" was a distortion of the truth in the same way that "attempted murder" is in the context of the OP. I don't believe that the OP is advising Democrats to lie to the electorate.

davidm
09-04-2010, 01:16 PM
The point I was making was that "death panels" was a distortion of the truth in the same way that "attempted murder" is in the context of the OP. I don't believe that the OP is advising Democrats to lie to the electorate.I know that this wasn't a response to me, but I now understand your point.

pohjonen
09-04-2010, 01:22 PM
Another big problem for the democrats is that the health care talking points boiled down to 'Insurance companies are evil, so we'll mandate that everyone buy from them...' They did a good job of demonizing the insurance companies, at least in part because there really is a lot to demonize about them, then turned around and handed them a government enforced customer base.

This post is why I love the Dope. You just distilled my blubbering frustration with the Democrats I voted for down to two sentences. Bless you.

John DiFool
09-04-2010, 01:28 PM
For the message to get out, there has to be a messenger to deliver it. Which media conglomerate is consistently doing this? That list might begin and end with MSNBC, ast best.

Instead, Fox goes (to follow on the heels of the above meme) with "Death Panels Ooga Booga!", the more "conventional" media starts chattering "Ooga Booga?" "Ooga Booga!" amongst themselves, and whatever reasoned positions that the Democrats might put forth on the given issue is lost amongst the vigorous waving of spears and pitchforks. Begotten twin spawn of the "equal time" conceit that many news organizations seem to have developed:

"The latest Democratic idea to help increase job growth is to invest heavily in building up new infrastructure in the form of laying down high speed rail lines, repairing bridges, and building new city transit systems. But here is a clip of Republican Congressman Myloins R. Ounfire in reponse:"

"Democratz bad! Govurnmint investamient bad! Job creation bad! Bad bad bad bad bad!"

[Note most Republican-leaning voters will completely ignore that part about "job creation" while they prepare to pull the GOP level in the fall, because well you know anything which makes the Demos look bad is a good thing, right?]

As long as the media creates the impression that every single Democratic idea has to be counterbalanced by an equal yet opposite GOP response (no matter how reasonable the former or how ludicrous the latter), then the Democratic message has no real chance of prevailing.

davidm
09-04-2010, 01:55 PM
Obviously the media is a large part of the problem. This can be blamed at least partly on corporate control of the media, but that's obviously not the entire explanation given the example of MSNBC. Not that Maddow, Olberman, and Schultz are unbiased but Maddow especially presents intelligent thoughtful commentary and tries to avoid mindless sound bites.

So what is the answer? How do we get additional honest intelligent discussion of the issues?

Jackmannii
09-04-2010, 02:42 PM
Or better said, it's failure in messaging.

From a progressives perspective.


You got it wrong at the second line. It was actually (teeth-gratingly) wrong at the first line.

Any party (or party faithful) that think its biggest problem is "messaging" need a good whack with a clue stick and a book of grammar.

Otherwise they should be forcibly acquainted with conditions "on the ground" as they are "thrown under the bus".

Richard Parker
09-04-2010, 03:01 PM
Messaging doesn't really matter, except at the margins.

Democrats have 59 Senators and a significant majority in the House not because they convinced 60% of the country to support progressive causes, but because their coalition is very large, ranging from Barbara Boxer to Ben Nelson, from Earl Blumenauer to Heath Shuler. If they lose 40 House seats in 2010, almost without exception the seats will be in districts that had Republican majorities in 2008.

How did they get to that position of dominance? It wasn't by good "messaging" with respect to progressive policies. It was because people blamed Bush and Republicans for the weak job and income growth of the aughties, were sick of our boys and girls dying in Iraq, and thought the Republicans had become corrupt. And how will they lose it? Because people blame Obama for the poor recovery and think he's spending money without purpose. Health care will only be an issue insofar as it involves the economy.

Its true that most Americans don't know the facts of the health care reform. But the people who were not predisposed to be against it aren't being swayed by "death panels," I don't think. The persuadable people are being swayed by the argument that health care is really complicated and we can't really afford a trillion dollar experiment at the moment. That argument also has its flaws, but it isn't (entirely) the result of misinformation.

Sage Rat
09-04-2010, 05:58 PM
My point is from any rational point of view is, that the Republican Party's vision of a low regulation, for profit, private health insurance industry is both nonsensical and evil (and the rest of the developed world overwhelmingly agrees)
The private/public health insurance debate is not one of cost. Several countries have health care where, like the US, most health care is via private insurance and at prices comparable to the rest of the world -- i.e. about 50% of what we spend.

The US has the distinction of being a country where health care is a perk of employment. Better and better health care packs are offered to employees, ignoring that past a certain point of spending on a health care pack, all you're buying is a nicer lobby and overpriced medical equipment. The end result is that we have the prettiest hospitals and the most modern equipment, but at prices where that equipment isn't actually worth it in terms of dollars to adding years of life.

A monolithic, centralized insurance scheme that was run by the government would over time reduce prices back down to reasonable rates. But, that's not the only way of achieving this goal. Making insurance separate from employment would accomplish the same thing.

In principle, government insurance should be cheaper since they don't need to earn a profit and because there's only one organization -- allowing them to cut overhead. But on the other hand, there's nothing in particular to keep government insurance on the straight and narrow since there's no competition. There's no particular need for the government to try out different plans of what they do or don't cover to see which has the greatest benefit for the least money. That's not to say that government will be lazy, will raise prices needlessly, nor will become inefficient, merely that there's no particular guard against it. For something like 5% greater expense for private insurance, competition keeps them at a generally acceptable level, without need for intervention. And perhaps more important, we already have the corporations there and running. The economy will run smoother for revamping what is there than in tearing it down so that it can be built anew within the government.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter terribly whether you prefer public or private. The debate between them is over ideology more than cost.

The issues that we should actually be concerned with are in decreasing spending and (ideally) spreading coverage to all. Since public vs. private is an extraneous question to those goals, it's really better to focus on what actually matters. And in this case, it's something that both parties are ignoring.

Markxxx
09-05-2010, 04:09 PM
Of course the Democrats have a problem with their message.

There's an old saying "There's many ways of moving forward but only one way of standing still."

gonzomax
09-05-2010, 06:57 PM
It's funny how the repub message is conflicted but that is OK. They are wailing about the debt yet are pushing hard to get the Bush tax cut extended. Allowing it to expire would decrease the debt 25 to 30 percent, that is substantial. They scream about immigration but they hire the illegals. T%hey say government does not work yet the filibuster everything the dems want to do. It must be nice to be in control of what messages get out.

BrightNShiny
09-06-2010, 05:54 AM
Here are some slogans I've been kicking around for the Democratic Party:

"The Democratic Party: Punching Hippies for Fifty Years."

"The Democratic Party: We stand ready to jump on the next fake crisis."

"The Democratic Party: Unnecessarily complicated solutions to real world problems."

"The Democratic Party: Protecting Social Security--Look! Something shiny!"

DanBlather
09-06-2010, 10:39 AM
Here are some slogans I've been kicking around for the Democratic Party:

"The Democratic Party: Punching Hippies for Fifty Years."

"The Democratic Party: We stand ready to jump on the next fake crisis."

"The Democratic Party: Unnecessarily complicated solutions to real world problems."

"The Democratic Party: Protecting Social Security--Look! Something shiny!"How about just "The Democratic Party: The economy does better under us".

marshmallow
09-06-2010, 01:18 PM
If you have a streak of masochism I'd recommend reading rightwing blogs or discussion groups. Their concerns regarding their team humorously mirror those of Dem party blogs, namely whether their guys are being bribed or controlled by outside influences which is why they can't do what they really want deep down in their hearts. Or how bad their messaging is. Or how the media is liberal and against them. Or they openly wonder how "the American people" can be herded like sheep by the other side on this or that issue. Dem blogs blame religious indoctrination; Repub blogs blame schools. The thinking is so similar that if you change a couple words here and there and you may as well be reading comments at Daily Kos.

Unfortunately this knowledge never seems to do much, just like showing a religious person how another obviously wrong religion mirrors his doesn't make that person question his own religious precepts -- it just shows how crazy and wrong those other guys are, and he already knew that anyway.

pohjonen
09-06-2010, 06:04 PM
I think the Democrats "message" just fine. They just don't "do" so pretty good.

septimus
09-06-2010, 10:41 PM
Another big problem for the democrats is that the health care talking points boiled down to 'Insurance companies are evil, so we'll mandate that everyone buy from them...' They did a good job of demonizing the insurance companies, at least in part because there really is a lot to demonize about them, then turned around and handed them a government enforced customer base.

This post is why I love the Dope. You just distilled my blubbering frustration with the Democrats I voted for down to two sentences. Bless you.

Yes. Great message, godix.

Shodan
09-07-2010, 09:19 AM
How about just "The Democratic Party: The economy does better under us".
I don't think the rest of the quote will fit on a bumper sticker -

"...if you squint just right, and don't ask too many questions. And 2006-the present doesn't count. Neither does the deficit."

Catchy, ain't it?

Regards,
Shodan