Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-09-2019, 08:06 AM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,336

Why don't the Democrats do more "marketing" (plus the viability of "propaganda" legislation)?


1. For the life of me I don't understand why the Dems don't do more traditional marketing such as TV and radio commercials, etc. Currently, they rarely directly address the American people, but instead rely on the media to report sound bites and quotes that are often taken out of context by the more hostile media outlets. While there are ads created by individual candidates during elections, I rarely see ads that advocate for party policy positions.

For example, why isn't the DNC (or whatever national org) creating commercials that feature ordinary Americans saying why they support impeachment? Or workers and farmers who've been hurt by Trump's trade policies? Or how Trumps blockage of the impeachment inquiry is holding up important healthcare and infrastructure legislation? They shouldn't seem like traditional political attack ads that feature Trump with ominous music, but more like traditional commercials for some product. These commercials could be played during primetime to reach people that don't watch the news, or people that typically only watch Fox News. They gotta sell this shit to the American people!

2. Would it be viable for the House to throw together and pass a bunch of legislation on infrastructure, healthcare, etc., that the Senate will inevitably block, that the Dems can use as evidence that the Republicans "don't care about middle class Americans?" The proposed bills need not require a lot of effort since they are just being used for strategic marketing purposes. The Dems could then create commercials showing how the Republicans are voting against the American people.

Thoughts?
  #2  
Old 10-09-2019, 08:17 AM
The Understander is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA
Posts: 1,154
Hot take: they don't have the cash.

(Older article, but I haven't heard of any post-Blue Wave windfalls to Democrats, either...)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...l-fundraising/

There's consequences to trying a little bit to not completely sell out to the billionaire psychopaths that run everything -- not the least of which is that you draw criticism for not messaging hard enough. You gotta laugh to keep from cryin'!
__________________
"...I don't think it's accurate to lump all forms of racism together." --Bone, 5/31/2019
"Hate speech, insults, and purposely inflammatory remarks (i.e., trolling) will not be tolerated."--Bone, 10/26/2018
  #3  
Old 10-09-2019, 08:33 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,698
I believe they already have done #2. The House has passed many bills but the shelled reptile running the Senate has decided to sit on them and the only business the Senate conducts is ramrodding right wing federal judges through.

Let's see how the next few months- get a few court orders to enforce the subpoenas, let the Supremes either force the White House to stop stonewalling or expose themselves as partisan hacks. The Republicans are imploding, just pop some corn and enjoy the train wreck.
  #4  
Old 10-09-2019, 08:41 AM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Understander View Post
Hot take: they don't have the cash.

(Older article, but I haven't heard of any post-Blue Wave windfalls to Democrats, either...)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...l-fundraising/

There's consequences to trying a little bit to not completely sell out to the billionaire psychopaths that run everything -- not the least of which is that you draw criticism for not messaging hard enough. You gotta laugh to keep from cryin'!
I wonder what the breakdown is between the RNC and DNC in terms of who is donating. Is the RNC making most of their money off of 6 to 8 figure donations by the wealthy while the DNC is relying on small money donations from ordinary people?
  #5  
Old 10-09-2019, 09:29 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
I wonder what the breakdown is between the RNC and DNC in terms of who is donating. Is the RNC making most of their money off of 6 to 8 figure donations by the wealthy while the DNC is relying on small money donations from ordinary people?
Open Secrets is usually a good source for this kind of information, although it doesn't address this exact question.
Quote:
The Republican National Committee (RNC) celebrated raising a record-breaking $14.6 million in February, the most it ever has collected in a non-election year month and its second-best February ever. Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) raised around $6.2 million over that same time.
An RNC official told The Center for Responsive Politics that almost 60 percent of the RNC’s donations in February came from small-dollar donors ($200 or less). The official noted that since January, the RNC’s small-dollar fundraising arm has had six days of seven-figure fundraising.
Quote:
A DNC spokesman said that year-to-date the DNC has raised $14.4 million, the most it has ever gotten in a presidential cycle off-year since 2003. The spokesman noted that 63 percent of the party committee’s February donations came from small-dollar donors with an average donation of $47.
Not exactly a direct comparison.

Regards,
Shodan
  #6  
Old 10-09-2019, 09:40 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Understander View Post
Hot take: they don't have the cash.

(Older article, but I haven't heard of any post-Blue Wave windfalls to Democrats, either...)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...l-fundraising/
This one has me scratching my head. If Trump being president isn't enough to lead to a huge flow of donations to the DNC and anything (D), then what does or would it take?
  #7  
Old 10-09-2019, 09:52 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
...For example, why isn't the DNC (or whatever national org) creating commercials that feature ordinary Americans saying why they support impeachment? Or workers and farmers who've been hurt by Trump's trade policies? Or how Trumps blockage of the impeachment inquiry is holding up important healthcare and infrastructure legislation? They shouldn't seem like traditional political attack ads that feature Trump with ominous music, but more like traditional commercials for some product. These commercials could be played during primetime to reach people that don't watch the news, or people that typically only watch Fox News. They gotta sell this shit to the American people! .....
Thoughts?
I think that is the exactly the wrong message the Democratic Party should be sending out. Impeachment is not the Democrats issue; it is a rule of law issue. It is not about selling it to the American people, it's about the elected officials of all parties doing their duty as described in the Constitution. If the DNC tried to "sell this shit to the American people" it would completely undermine the seriousness of what is happening, create a false narrative and ensure that Americans could just dismiss what is happening as another partisan issue.
  #8  
Old 10-09-2019, 10:32 AM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
I think that is the exactly the wrong message the Democratic Party should be sending out. Impeachment is not the Democrats issue; it is a rule of law issue. It is not about selling it to the American people, it's about the elected officials of all parties doing their duty as described in the Constitution. If the DNC tried to "sell this shit to the American people" it would completely undermine the seriousness of what is happening, create a false narrative and ensure that Americans could just dismiss what is happening as another partisan issue.
That's why I said it shouldn't seem like a typical political attack ad. The nuance is not making it seem like a partisan issue. I think a good marketing team could do it. Impeachment might not be an ideal issue for a campaign, but virtually all other policies are.
  #9  
Old 10-09-2019, 10:36 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,434
I don’t think that impeaching the president should be something that is sold, just like I don’t think prosecutors should take out ads drumming up support for their next indictment. Impeachment and the trial in the senate are public events that the public will be able to watch. It’s a democracy, not toothpaste to be sold on daytime tv.
  #10  
Old 10-09-2019, 10:40 AM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Understander View Post
Hot take: they don't have the cash.
I figured this was certainly an issue (though Bloomberg's donations alone could buy 2 primetime commercials everyday for a year). Dems could also engage in guerrilla viral marketing. Creating memes, or a contest offering $5k for the funniest/most persuasive 2 minute video/song explaining the efffects of Rep or Dem policies. I mean I'm just spit-balling ideas (remember there are no bad ideas when brainstorming )
  #11  
Old 10-09-2019, 10:42 AM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
I don’t think that impeaching the president should be something that is sold, just like I don’t think prosecutors should take out ads drumming up support for their next indictment. Impeachment and the trial in the senate are public events that the public will be able to watch. It’s a democracy, not toothpaste to be sold on daytime tv.
The middle class is at work during the day. They only get highlights IF they watch the news. And any generally apolitical types who happen to watch Fox News are only seeing the clips where the "libs get owned."
  #12  
Old 10-09-2019, 10:56 AM
squidfood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 451
So the R's ran on getting rid of stuff: "Repeal Obamacare". This is a two-line proposal that is easy to state - so they could vote for it over, and over again and it was a simple tagline (which of course turned out to be not-so-simple, but that was after the elections).

The D's are running on creating new stuff. So (1) proposals quickly get lost in details on how to implement the new stuff, (2) everyone quibbles about those details as soon as a proposal comes out, (3) due to the primary, there's no single party leadership on how to resolve those details - the contest is very about which approach to take and (4) the R's can turn those votes into poison pills, especially for swing district reps, by harping on the broken details, even if the concept as a whole is broadly popular (see: Green New Deal).
  #13  
Old 10-09-2019, 11:06 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
Would it be viable for the House to throw together and pass a bunch of legislation on infrastructure, healthcare, etc., that the Senate will inevitably block, that the Dems can use as evidence that the Republicans "don't care about middle class Americans?" The proposed bills need not require a lot of effort since they are just being used for strategic marketing purposes. The Dems could then create commercials showing how the Republicans are voting against the American people.
The Republicans wouldn't say "We're voting against this because we hate the American people."

They'd say, "This is just another unnecessary special interests pork barrel project that the Democrats want to raise your taxes to pay for because they hate hard working middle class Americans. So we're proud to defend the American people by standing strong against them."

There's no issue so obviously good that you can't figure out a way to spin it as a negative.
  #14  
Old 10-09-2019, 11:43 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
This one has me scratching my head. If Trump being president isn't enough to lead to a huge flow of donations to the DNC and anything (D), then what does or would it take?
Well, there are ten or so major candidates running for President as well as competitive Senate races. Tom Steyer could do some good instead of a vanity campaign, perhaps he will after he’s embarrassed in the October debate.

Keep in mind the DNC and RNC are mainly for the purpose of getting the party’s nominee elected. There’s no real competition for the Republican nomination so they’re flush with cash right now and can run pro-Trump and anti-impeachment ads right now to benefit his re-election.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #15  
Old 10-09-2019, 12:06 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The Republicans wouldn't say "We're voting against this because we hate the American people."

They'd say, "This is just another unnecessary special interests pork barrel project that the Democrats want to raise your taxes to pay for because they hate hard working middle class Americans. So we're proud to defend the American people by standing strong against them."

There's no issue so obviously good that you can't figure out a way to spin it as a negative.
How about a tax policy that keeps net taxes the same, but shifts the burden from middle class to the rich and corporations?
  #16  
Old 10-09-2019, 05:38 PM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
The middle class is at work during the day. They only get highlights IF they watch the news. And any generally apolitical types who happen to watch Fox News are only seeing the clips where the "libs get owned."
Yeah, I mean democracies die for a reason. I don’t think that any advertising effort by the DNC is going to change that a large segment of Americans are intellectually lazy.
  #17  
Old 10-09-2019, 07:22 PM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,434
FWIW, Penzey Spices is doing the kind of campaign you want: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...ad/3920828002/
  #18  
Old 10-09-2019, 08:38 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
How about a tax policy that keeps net taxes the same, but shifts the burden from middle class to the rich and corporations?
They'll call it socialism, class warfare, and an attack on job creators.

We're talking about a party that's managed to turn their opposition to health care and the environment into something they brag about.
  #19  
Old 10-09-2019, 10:39 PM
Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
How about a tax policy that keeps net taxes the same, but shifts the burden from middle class to the rich and corporations?
One outcome is that taxes on the poor will go UP.

Or do you think that the corporations will simply watch their profits get reduced from higher taxes and not raise prices in response?
  #20  
Old 10-09-2019, 11:17 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
This one has me scratching my head. If Trump being president isn't enough to lead to a huge flow of donations to the DNC and anything (D), then what does or would it take?
Wall Street billionaires and others not to be worried about all of the crazy proposals they hear? Wealth tax and free everything might have some worried about what the real costs will be. Plus it's not as if once government and even worse, organized labor, gets their hands on the money that it will be used effectively, efficiently, or wisely. At least for what it was promised for.

I wonder if Biden or a Clinton/Obama type had a perceived insurmountable lead if the money raising would be easier.
  #21  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:19 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
Or do you think that the corporations will simply watch their profits get reduced from higher taxes and not raise prices in response?
If corporations could simply raise their prices anytime they want without consequences, they would already have done it.
  #22  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:23 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
One outcome is that taxes on the poor will go UP.

Or do you think that the corporations will simply watch their profits get reduced from higher taxes and not raise prices in response?
Impressive ignorance of basic economics. Prices are set by supply and demand. Corporations always charge as much as they possibly can for their products. What, you think right now they’re saying “Well, we COULD raise prices and increase our profits...but it just wouldn’t be nice, and we’re making enough money already”?
  #23  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:26 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Impressive ignorance of basic economics. Prices are set by supply and demand. Corporations always charge as much as they possibly can for their products. What, you think right now they’re saying “Well, we COULD raise prices and increase our profits...but it just wouldn’t be nice, and we’re making enough money already”?
Yeah, it’s not economic ignorance to think that across the board tax or wage increases are passed to the consumer. The reason that corporations don’t raise prices without limit is that there is competition. When they and the competition each have 10%, for sake of argument, more expenses then they can each raise prices without losing a competitive advantage.

Last edited by octopus; 10-10-2019 at 12:26 AM.
  #24  
Old 10-10-2019, 09:49 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Yeah, it’s not economic ignorance to think that across the board tax or wage increases are passed to the consumer. The reason that corporations don’t raise prices without limit is that there is competition. When they and the competition each have 10%, for sake of argument, more expenses then they can each raise prices without losing a competitive advantage.
And there is always competition, from other countries' producers, and from everything else that goes into opportunity cost.

Suppose every restaurant in the US raised its prices 10%. Obviously you can't cross the border to eat at a restaurant, usually. But you can choose to eat out less.

Regards,
Shodan
  #25  
Old 10-11-2019, 12:19 AM
Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Impressive ignorance of basic economics. Prices are set by supply and demand. Corporations always charge as much as they possibly can for their products. What, you think right now they’re saying “Well, we COULD raise prices and increase our profits...but it just wouldn’t be nice, and we’re making enough money already”?
Prices are ALSO set by the cost of materials and labor needed to produce the end product.

Otherwise, companies would undercut each other until they mutually drove each other into bankruptcy. If faced with a choice of raising prices or going out of business, any major company is going to raise prices.
  #26  
Old 10-11-2019, 12:25 AM
Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
And there is always competition, from other countries' producers, and from everything else that goes into opportunity cost.

Suppose every restaurant in the US raised its prices 10%. Obviously you can't cross the border to eat at a restaurant, usually. But you can choose to eat out less.

Regards,
Shodan
And yet -- contrary to your simplistic view of economics -- raising prices is exactly what restaurants are doing.

Quote:
The restaurant industry employs a large portion of minimum wage workers. It's no surprise that 83% of survey respondents affected by minimum wage hikes reported that their labor costs rose at least 3%.

Twenty-three percent responded to minimum wage hikes by not making any changes to their business.

But the majority did. The most popular response — from 71% of operators — was to raise menu prices. Nearly half reworked their food and beverage options to reduce costs.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/10/high...vey-finds.html

Quote:
Restaurants known for their cheap eats have been raising prices as they grapple with a marked rise in labor costs, causing some proprietors to worry that price-sensitive customers will opt to swing by the grocery store instead.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...mwe-story.html
  #27  
Old 10-11-2019, 09:14 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,990
I don't see how this, in particular -
Quote:
Restaurants known for their cheap eats have been raising prices as they grapple with a marked rise in labor costs, causing some proprietors to worry that price-sensitive customers will opt to swing by the grocery store instead.
is contrary to my view of economics. It appears to be saying what I did - that restaurants have to compete with their alternatives, one of which is not eating in restaurants.

Regards,
Shodan
  #28  
Old 10-11-2019, 10:16 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
Prices are ALSO set by the cost of materials and labor needed to produce the end product.

Otherwise, companies would undercut each other until they mutually drove each other into bankruptcy. If faced with a choice of raising prices or going out of business, any major company is going to raise prices.
Generally speaking, cost of goods sold isn't really a big input into pricing decisions, except as a floor below which things can't be priced and break even. Most of the time though, the price is WAY above that amount.

And companies do engage in exactly what you talk about, when they're trying to compete on price. They continually undercut each other, until their prices are a hair's breadth above their costs. At which point, stuff like supply chain efficiencies, economies of scale, etc... really start to show, as they affect those costs a lot.

But most companies DON'T compete on price, because the problem is that if your value proposition is that you're the lowest-cost vendor, then you HAVE to be the lowest cost vendor if you hope to sell to people whose primary goal is to get the lowest price. That's how those races to the bottom start.

So most companies compete by trying to differentiate themselves from their competition- features, service, location, etc... This both allows them to hopefully set their own price point and/or market their products/services to different market segments who presumably might be willing to pay more. At it's core, it's a fundamental recognition that one guy may be willing to buy a Kia because it's an inexpensive car, but others are willing to spend a LOT of money to buy a Rolls Royce.

And Shodan's right- price-sensitivity among consumers is affected not only by price, but also by subsititutes, which are alternatives not necessarily within the exact category that's being viewed by price.
  #29  
Old 10-13-2019, 08:30 AM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
One outcome is that taxes on the poor will go UP.

Or do you think that the corporations will simply watch their profits get reduced from higher taxes and not raise prices in response?
They'd probably just do less stock buy-backs at this point. But more importantly, the legislation wouldn't pass. The point is the optics. Everyone in this thread is talking about how the Republicans will spin something. "Spin" is essential marketing. It's time we do some of our own.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017