"As of July 4 this year, 10.2 million PPP loans, introduced to support small businesses, had been fully or partially written off."
Excerpt 2.
"After conservative attacks on the student debt plan, progressive groups pointed out that a number of GOP politicians had benefited from PPP write-offs.
The Center for American Progress posted a tweet showing that companies owned or part-owned by 13 Republican members of Congress had received PPP loan forgiveness.
The 13 include Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who received $183,504 in PPP loan forgiveness for her company Taylor Commercial. She has criticized the president's student debt plan in appearances on Newsmax and Real America's Voice."
The average PPP forgiveness is $72,500. So what is the difference?
One of Newt Gingrich's innovations, as I recall, is that he put together a list of negative words and phrases that his caucus should all use repeatedly in their talking points. I believe that Republican pollster Frank Luntz was involved in running focus groups to come up with the list. It was part of Newt's drive to convert politics into a blood sport.
As someone with a graduate degree in Rhetoric, I disagree with your characterization of it as a myth. It has pretty much been a reality since at least the 90s, with RARE exceptions.
Do you think part of this (aside from tone-deaf phrasing/labeling) is that Democrats are such a diverse and skeptical coalition that it's hard to get unified (all Democratic members of Congress and talking heads having the same talking points instantly), sustained, and bumper-sticker length messaging?
There are a number of issues involved. The central issue is that of what constitutes Democrat identity.
TLDR version:
Contemporary Democrats (post-70s) value policy and governance and downplay (or even critique) religion and many traditional cultural values. rationality and intellect is valued more than emotion.
This means that most Democrat messaging centers on actual policy and governance or is couched in that rhetoric. Little mention is generally made of other values, particularly religious values or emotional values/appeals.
There is a long history of data and experience that indicates that talking about these aspects is actually kind of pointless, whereas utilizing emotion and religion is effective.
Dem v GoP messaging was a big topic of discussion in my field back in the 90s. The same problems exist today as existed then, because Dem identity will not allow them to change their messaging.
Good points. Put another way, I might say that Democrats don't know how to engage the limbic brain (which is where enthusiasm and the drive to actually vote for the messenger comes from) effectively. Except unintentionally by riling up the sensibilities of 'casual' Democrats and lean-Republican voters. The policy identity vs moral/cultural identity does seem baked in.
They know how--in the sense that they have the requisite understanding and knowledge. They see doing so as being beneath them--pandering to the baser qualities of humanity.
It may not be expressed that way directly or openly, but that is the underlying perception/mindset. There are plenty of people (like me) who can tell them these things--but they are loathe to do it.
And yet lost the Presidency or not won it several times. Your messaging likely isn't effective if you lose. The context is important. Who you have to shift is important. Our system renders winning the most votes (overall) meaningless.
If your messaging is EFFECTIVE you move the right people in the right locations to win in those necessary locations.
Yes, it is more complex than that, this is the TLDR version.
The larger PR aspects are even more troubling.. remember that these are the people that brought you defund the police and other similar things that (despite the in-party pushback) captured the popular consciousness. Kind of the actual REVERSE of effective messaging.
messaging takes into account not only what YOU want to say and how you want to move people--it also takes into account what your opponents will do and it takes into account the context of the larger system (limitations and options) and the qualities and identities of the target audience.
Good point. However Dems face structural problems that have no foreseeable solution: The electoral college, gerrymandering (the result of poor Democratic performance in local/state elections), and the advantage small states have in the Senate. Also, the electoral margin is way closer than is should be. Why are we getting 52 % of the presidential votes if the issue popularity is closer to 55 - 60 % and more?
From Newsweek...
Excerpt 1
"As of July 4 this year, 10.2 million PPP loans, introduced to support small businesses, had been fully or partially written off."
Excerpt 2.
"After conservative attacks on the student debt plan, progressive groups pointed out that a number of GOP politicians had benefited from PPP write-offs.
The Center for American Progress posted a tweet showing that companies owned or part-owned by 13 Republican members of Congress had received PPP loan forgiveness.
The 13 include Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who received $183,504 in PPP loan forgiveness for her company Taylor Commercial. She has criticized the president's student debt plan in appearances on Newsmax and Real America's Voice."
The average PPP forgiveness is $72,500. So what is the difference?
Hypocrisy abounds.
And again it comes down to dems are horrible at messaging.
One of Newt Gingrich's innovations, as I recall, is that he put together a list of negative words and phrases that his caucus should all use repeatedly in their talking points. I believe that Republican pollster Frank Luntz was involved in running focus groups to come up with the list. It was part of Newt's drive to convert politics into a blood sport.
Democratic bad messaging is a bit of a myth.
As someone with a graduate degree in Rhetoric, I disagree with your characterization of it as a myth. It has pretty much been a reality since at least the 90s, with RARE exceptions.
Wow. A graduate degree in Rhetoric. What do you do with such a thing?
I'm not being sarcastic. I just really wonder.
Political consultant, spin doctor, sales & marketing, corporate communications, academia, teaching.
Interesting. Sounds like fun.
Do you think part of this (aside from tone-deaf phrasing/labeling) is that Democrats are such a diverse and skeptical coalition that it's hard to get unified (all Democratic members of Congress and talking heads having the same talking points instantly), sustained, and bumper-sticker length messaging?
There are a number of issues involved. The central issue is that of what constitutes Democrat identity.
TLDR version:
Contemporary Democrats (post-70s) value policy and governance and downplay (or even critique) religion and many traditional cultural values. rationality and intellect is valued more than emotion.
This means that most Democrat messaging centers on actual policy and governance or is couched in that rhetoric. Little mention is generally made of other values, particularly religious values or emotional values/appeals.
There is a long history of data and experience that indicates that talking about these aspects is actually kind of pointless, whereas utilizing emotion and religion is effective.
Dem v GoP messaging was a big topic of discussion in my field back in the 90s. The same problems exist today as existed then, because Dem identity will not allow them to change their messaging.
Good points. Put another way, I might say that Democrats don't know how to engage the limbic brain (which is where enthusiasm and the drive to actually vote for the messenger comes from) effectively. Except unintentionally by riling up the sensibilities of 'casual' Democrats and lean-Republican voters. The policy identity vs moral/cultural identity does seem baked in.
They know how--in the sense that they have the requisite understanding and knowledge. They see doing so as being beneath them--pandering to the baser qualities of humanity.
It may not be expressed that way directly or openly, but that is the underlying perception/mindset. There are plenty of people (like me) who can tell them these things--but they are loathe to do it.
You hit the nail on the head. They're squeamish about not fighting 'fair'. The equivalent of bringing a sponge to a knife fight.
Why do you say that?
Part of the reason is that over the past 3 decades the Democrats have lost the popular vote for President once.
And yet lost the Presidency or not won it several times. Your messaging likely isn't effective if you lose. The context is important. Who you have to shift is important. Our system renders winning the most votes (overall) meaningless.
That's a different problem than messaging, imo.
No, it isn't.
If your messaging is EFFECTIVE you move the right people in the right locations to win in those necessary locations.
Yes, it is more complex than that, this is the TLDR version.
The larger PR aspects are even more troubling.. remember that these are the people that brought you defund the police and other similar things that (despite the in-party pushback) captured the popular consciousness. Kind of the actual REVERSE of effective messaging.
messaging takes into account not only what YOU want to say and how you want to move people--it also takes into account what your opponents will do and it takes into account the context of the larger system (limitations and options) and the qualities and identities of the target audience.
Good point. However Dems face structural problems that have no foreseeable solution: The electoral college, gerrymandering (the result of poor Democratic performance in local/state elections), and the advantage small states have in the Senate. Also, the electoral margin is way closer than is should be. Why are we getting 52 % of the presidential votes if the issue popularity is closer to 55 - 60 % and more?