The Democratic Party's salesmanship is shit.

[octopus]

@Richard_Parker

The OP is committing the very fallacy that he is projecting upon the Democratic Party: political arrogance.

The OP’s premise is that support for the GOP is unnaturally inflated beyond where it would be if both party’s had equally effective sales tactics. That’s bullshit. What we know from all of human history is that what’s extremely easy to sell is tribalism, religion, fear, and skepticism of power held by people other than those who look like you and live near you. It’s such an essential part of political success that until very very recently it was unheard of to have candidates for even lower office who weren’t Christians, indeed, specific kinds of Christians. It’s so central to political success that we debated for weeks the meaning of Barack Obama sometimes not wearing a fucking flag pin.

What’s very hard to sell is liberalism. Gay marriage is a hard sell. Paying for someone else’s kid, of a different race, to get a good education is a hard sell. Cutting the size of the military, criticizing the police, and defending the rights of accused terrorists are inherently unpopular ideas in every society ever.

It’s a goddamn miracle of science that Democrats have won the popular vote in every presidential election but one since 1988.

Actually it’s no surprise. Extracting wealth from the productive via voting is very popular.

[panache45]

@Sitnam

…bares some responsibility…

It’s “bears”.

[QuickSilver]

@panache45

It’s “bears”.

Oh my!

[John_Mace]

@panache45

It’s “bears”.

You wouldn’t be lion about that, would you?

[Sitnam]

What we know from all of human history is that what’s extremely easy to sell is tribalism, religion, fear, and skepticism of power held by people other than those who look like you and live near you

From Richard Parker above

Tribalism, religion, fear and skepticism of power are topics. They are not the insidious legerdemain of a particular political philosophy.

For the sake of argument, say the greatest good of the nation could be found in achieving the objectives of the Democratic Party. There is no reason, say religion, couldn’t be used to those ends. To people who are unknowningly manipulated by religion and fear against their self interest it is strange to them there is not a counter argument couched in those terms. If that is what motivates them and directs their interests it is moronic as a strategy to disregard that media because you simply don’t agree with its application.

[QuickSilver]

@Sitnam

From Richard Parker above

Tribalism, religion, fear and skepticism of power are topics. They are not the insidious legerdemain of a particular political philosophy.

For the sake of argument, say the greatest good of the nation could be found in achieving the objectives of the Democratic Party. There is no reason, say religion, couldn’t be used to those ends. To people who are unknowningly manipulated by religion and fear against their self interest it is strange to them there is not a counter argument couched in those terms. If that is what motivates them and directs their interests it is moronic as a strategy to disregard that media because you simply don’t agree with its application.

So the end justifies the means?..

[Sitnam]

@QuickSilver

So the end justifies the means?..

What? Most people believe in gods, and many people make descisons based on things like tribalism and fear. If these are the things that motive voters this is the battle ground. This is the structure in which you make your case. Tribalism, for instance, is not necessarily bad. It harnesses social pressure which can be utilized for any end good or bad.

Your party looks out of touch if you do not face voters on their terms. And rightly so. I suggest we convince them on their ground instead of seeking to require they change.

[BigT]

@Sitnam

If tribalism is indeed an ingrained motivator for human behavior there is no reason at all it cannot be harnessed for the Democratic Parties objectives.

Yes, there is. Because our objectives reject that tribalism. Our objective is to reduce racism, so we can’t very well entice racists. We want to reject sexism, so we can’t entice sexists. We want to reject homophobia, so we can’t very well entice homophobes. We want to reject xenophobia, so we can’t very well entice xenophobes.

And we can’t do the party tribalism if we promote ourselves as a big tent that anyone can join. Tribalism requires you to declare some people off limits. Hell, it’s why Sanders’s supporters won’t embrace Clinton.

Similarly, asking use to use propaganda or shady politics and stuff–you’re asking the party that promotes itself as against that to do all those things? Are we supposed to be just as corrupt as Trump says we are?

Maybe Democrats could do better. But they have more restrictions, more things they have to avoid doing. When Republicans are having to activate their white nationalist supporters as Trump is to have a chance at winning, I think it’s a weird time to be saying that what Democrats do to get voters is ineffective.

Maybe what you call “salesmanship” isn’t even the way to go.

[BigT]

@Sitnam

What? Most people believe in gods, and many people make descisons based on things like tribalism and fear. If these are the things that motive voters this is the battle ground. This is the structure in which you make your case. Tribalism, for instance, is not necessarily bad. It harnesses social pressure which can be utilized for any end good or bad.

Your party looks out of touch if you do not face voters on their terms. And rightly so. I suggest we convince them on their ground instead of seeking to require they change.

Wow, what spin. Manipulating people using religion or tribalism or fear is “facing voters on their own terms.” No, it’s literally the exact opposite. Meeting people on their own terms means treating them like fellow human beings, and paying attention to their wants and needs.

You also seem to have a fucked up idea of how Democrats appeal to people. Literally every ad for Clinton has used fear–the fear of what will happen if Trump becomes president. His incompetence will cause dangerous things to happen. I’ve actually had to eat my words about how you shouldn’t use fear as a motivator. Legitimate fear is fine–just don’t be a fear monger, creating new fear or targeting fear at the wrong thing.

She has also appealed largely to religious sensibilities–without manipulation. A key part of her campaign is appealing to Christian values, and how Trump doesn’t measure up to them. Yes, she’s been less than explicit, but the Democratic party is the party of separation of Church and State, so she can’t afford to alienate those people who would find directly mentioning God to be horrible.

And, even then, she did pick a Catholic running mate who is against abortion, for those “religious” voters who would vote for the devil himself if he hated abortion. She just can’t afford to push that, lest she lose the pro-choice vote.

And then tribalism? What do you think all that patriotism was about in the DNC? America is great. Americans are great. She appealed to a tribalism that affects all of us, rather than one that alienates people. She appealed to our tribal values of embracing people.

And why do you think all those soldiers were there? Why do you think the Khan-bait was there? Why do you think she brought up a Hispanic Miss USA at the debates?

If there are indeed sales tactics the Democrats are lacking, those are not them. They are going as far as they can go. To go further would be manipulation or would backfire.

The main issue I see this year is just a lack of charisma. They had that with Obama, but Clinton doesn’t really have it. Trump has a perverse form of it–not even the ones bad guys normally have. His charisma is based on being authoritarian–the opposite of that book you mention about winning friends and influencing people.