The GOP playbook has become predictable and can best be described as taking your opponents strength and turning it against him.
The idea being to attack his strong points where he will be less prepared to defend himself and thereby leaving him more vulnerable then he otherwise would be. This coupled with a barrage of false accusations both by political and non political proxies with the purpose of having the opponent always being on the defensive, has been a fruitful strategy.
The Democrats meanwhile have been seriously lacking in anything that can be called an effective communication strategy to reach the wider public and penetrate the GOP onslaught of misinformation. Therefore I thought to offer my humble suggestion towards what just such a strategy might look like. Please feel free to add and expand to the list.
First and foremost provide a compelling narrative for the direction of the presidency and the country for the public and connect your accomplishments to the effect it has on their everyday life. This is crucial and must be repeated at every chance ad infinitum.
Anticipate media story angels and proceed to have counters to rightwing talking points and be ready to substitute them with your own. The media landscape of today loves an adversarial theme to news stories and will lead with the spin off whichever party can provide the most heated critique of its opponents.
Make it personal, put a face to your opponent it makes it more visceral, preferable high ranking GOP with high media visibility. Don’t talk about republicans or the GOP which can easily be conflated with their constituencies, instead name names like Boehner, Rand Paul etc.
Always question whom your opponent really are looking out for and working to represent. Influential backers with deep pockets are a favorite staple of antagonists of which there Indubitable are several to choose from. Whilst at all times, identifying and speaking of yourself as one of the ordinary American people under siege from an opponent unmoved by the trials of the common citizen. Former president Clinton excelled at this particular feat.
Link your opponents every action as part of a long historical chain of harmful actions and present them as to being expected and to the detriment of the nation and its citizens.
Never address or defend yourself directly from an accusation directed at you from your opponent, it legitimizes them, instead turn the table and attack.
Show more passion, you can’t expect your supporters to go to bats for you when they perceive they don’t have you in their corner fighting for them, however misguided that sentiment may be.
They did most of this stuff. And Obama talked his ass off. The problem wasn’t the crafting of messaging. It was the message. It was what they did and wanted to do.
If I were the presidents communications advisor I would advise him to simplify and consolidate his message to the American people.
Create a continuous easy to follow theme for all the successes and setbacks to the administration and the country as a whole.
One such theme that spontaneously comes to mind is that of the nation as a team with the president as the coach working together to overcome adversity and towards triumph. In this narrative it’s the first quarter and the nation is down but not out, the metaphor is even richer than that.
Be clear as to what the American people expect from you which is not a “handout” but instead to enable them to persevere themselves by removing obstacles in their way.
Be upfront with the very real difficulties and challenges of the everyman and connect them to the larger challenges of the country.
Keep reiterating that we are all in this together and we must act together to overcome and triumph. Don’t fall into the trap of making it about yourself and what you are doing it’s about making sure the people of the United States have the tools of doing it for themselves.
Americans are answering the call and meeting the challenges of our times.
All over the country folks are working hard to put food on the table for their families. The presidents agenda has always been simply to enable them to do just that and thrive. He believes that the ordinary Americans discerning palate will in time be able to recognize who is really offering them rotten fish.
Whether you’re right or wrong is irrelevant (btw, you’re wrong).
What matters is that the public was mostly against the agenda. The polls prove this, the election last year suggested it, and this past election’s asskicking really proves it.
The president can believe anything he wants; but when they hammer an intrusive-government agenda down the throats on pure party line votes, I’d be shocked if he were surprised by these results. Then again, as others have said, in any room he walks into he’s instantly the least qualified guy there. He’s still a glorified community activist, not a politician or strategist.
It says a lot about conservatives that they think this would be popular. Maybe it’s just conservatives who would like these things? Because I and everyone I know would vote against them. Because, unlike many conservatives, we confine ourselves to the way the world really works, and we’re able to do the math.
Health care reform is not about wanting something for nothing. It’s about not wanting to get nothing for something. The rest of the world can get health care just as good as ours for half the price. So half the money we’re spending on health care, we’re not getting anything for. We just want to get what we’re paying for.
And yet you’re willing to believe that the government can pass a bill that supposedly will give 30 million additional Americans health care coverage, while at the same time promising that the bill will reduce the deficit, not affect anyone’s existing coverage, not cause premiums to go up, and not cost any jobs despite the program largely being financed through new taxes and penalties on businesses.
You also seem to believe that you can give 30 million Americans better coverage, while not increasing the pool of doctors, while also promising to fund part of it by cutting fees to doctors under Medicare, and while promising not to affect anyone’s access to doctors or their quality of care or their costs.
And now reality is asserting itself and insurance premiums are going up and businesses are cutting their hiring, and you wonder how that can possibly happen.
Why bother attempting to make an argument at all only to lower the discourse with this kind of silliness? Barack Obama, twelve-year professor constitutional law at Chicago? Alumnus of Harvard Law School, and president of the Harvard Law Review while there? A man who was able to come more or less out of nowhere to overwhelmingly win a US presidential election? He’s “instantly the least qualified guy” whenever he walks into a room? Does that bear any relation to reality, and will it have any persuasive power beyond picking fights?
Yes, Sam Stone, I believe that all that’s possible, because everyone else in the civilized world actually does it. And if there’s some “American exceptionalism” that prevents it from working here, then maybe we should try to not be so exceptional, because right now, we’re exceptionally bad.
Um, yes I read it when it came out, and remembered it to hammer home the point to you.
If you STILL do not understand it, then you’re probably beyond the point where reason and debate will be effective.
And as long as his IQ is one of a bowl of soup :rolleyes: I guess you win the debate. Nice comeback there - next time you should make fun of his momma…
No. 8 - Get rid of Tim Kaine. I remember seeing him on the Daily Show a few weeks before the Midterms, and his basic selling point was “We suck less.” Which is true, but not really a compelling reason for people to line up behind you.
It’s because of the lack of confidence that democrats have in conveying their message, and rightly so I might add. They naturally take it for given that people will be deceived to think their ideas suck so naturally they default to “we suck less” than the other guy.
I would think that the American people instead would like to hear about the democrats vision for the future of the country. I want the president constantly to tell how he imagines the State of the Nation at the end of his second term and how he is working towards that end.
What kind of country will he be leaving when he steps out of office? A better, stronger and with ample opportunities for its citizens, where everyone is working towards the same goal?
Okay, maybe that’s a bit strong, but the point is that his argument here is utterly moronic. Does anyone actually believe that voters don’t know government spending has to be paid for?
I think both parties have been the Party of the Free Lunch for the last 15-20 yrs. The GOP proposes tax cuts without concomitant cuts in spending, and the Dems propose increases in spending commitments (especially in the outyears, e.g. Obamacare) without a view to reality and what we can afford, and what the public can pay for.
They both put it on the credit card and leave it to our kids to worry about. And to the extent that they get re-elected, yes the voters don’t realize that we need to pay for (taxcuts/handouts).
Fair enough. In other words, you’re saying that the Democrats are being hammered for the healthcare bill precisely because they didn’t couch it as a free lunch?
See, I personally feel like Obama did indeed “talk his ass off” about things with which he had no hope in changing. Or at the very least, no knowledge of the things he wanted changed.
In the end he has turned into another of the long line of corporate shills in office.
To me, that is exactly what prompted the Tea Party movement. More spending, more government involvement, and no knowledge of the power you have or don’t have whilst in office.
He misled the people albeit ‘accidentally’ and the people finally got fed up after 8 years of Bush they expected greater things.