I became more politically informed when DJT came into the picture, so I am fairly new to all of this.
The quote above confuses me.
I am a middle class person and from my perspective the Dems especially the Harris campaign was all about the working class. From child tax credits, small business start up help and assists buying a home.
I became more politically informed when DJT came into the picture, so I am fairly new to all of this.
The quote above confuses me.
I am a middle class person and from my perspective the Dems especially the Harris campaign was all about the working class. From child tax credits, small business start up help and assists buying a home.
From what I have seen/understood, it's the *perception* of support that was lacking in this most recent election cycle. Perception matters far, far more than facts, because it hits people in their hearts and their guts, and the Democrats do have a real messaging problem. As Donald Trump said (and polling evidence supports) he "won on groceries." The perception of the Republican messaging was one of understanding: "I get it. Food is expensive, you can't afford the things you used to be able to buy, the world feels scarier and less safe than it used to, and that really sucks. It's not your fault: it's Biden, he made the economy like this. It's the Democrats, they care more about making sure immigrants stay fed, not your kids, and they're wasting their time on 'diversity' and 'equality' when they could be focused on 'real' problems. We're going to fix it for you."
Meanwhile the perception of the Democrats messaging was: "Things aren't so bad as they seem! The economy is doing really well, actually. Crime is down. We know things are still hard, but we've been working to make them better. We just need to keep that work going!" It just didn't hit voters the same way, and that's being reflected worldwide as anti-incumbent sentiment continues to ripple around the globe. "We just need to keep on keeping on" is exactly the opposite of how many voters are feeling, so the Democrat's messaging as the party of 'normality' and 'stability' kind of backfired when what the voters really wanted is change - any change.
Right, but like, the economy IS doing well. Crime IS down. As Sharon always says, feelings aren't facts, and I want politicians who are honest with me about the state of the world, rather than creating a fear in me they have to solve. The Harris campaign DID talk about the economy, a lot. They talked about a number of policies that were actually going to make things better. I'm genuinely curious (I read a lot of your comments and I think they are great) - how should Harris have talked about it in an effective way? And what about what Trump did say about his plans - aside from his 'concept of plan' - like how we're going to round up and mass deport immigrants - that DID resonate with people?
I honestly don't know how we begin to untangle the web of distrust (for experts, the media, etc), address the poor literacy about the role and functions of the local/state/federal government, and break the information silos that got us to this point. I wish I did!
Because I do actually agree with this point: "As Sharon always says, feelings aren't facts, and I want politicians who are honest with me about the state of the world, rather than creating a fear in me they have to solve."
And my comment was only to point out this (rather uncomfortable) fact: perception matters more to voters. Human beings are wonderfully, delightfully, incredibly complex...and so is the world that we live in. Running on feelings and perceptions simply reflects voters' reality back to them, and that really resonates. So if the facts don't align with the voters' feelings, then the candidate running on facts likely needs to get buy-in from voters' feelings first *before* they can then effectively change voters' minds on those things that 'feel' true.
The question(s) would then be: Why did it feel true to say that the economy was struggling? (Because those individuals are truly struggling? Because Fox News was dedicated to making the economy seem as bad as possible? Both?) Why did it feel like crime was getting worse? (Because crime has gone UP in some areas, even if it went down overall, so people in those areas aren't convinced that everything is indeed getting better? Because they were told, over and over again, stories about crimes and criminals so they developed a perception of high criminal activity?)
Each question is another thread to untangle. Cutting through those threads with demagoguery is one method - the easy, less honest one - but truly unravelling them takes empathy and skill, and I don't think that the Democrats' messaging has always done that well. IMO.
I totally hear you. I keep getting stuck on the vile parts of his messaging - the mass deportations. The things about women. The desire to take away books and punish journalists - and that how resonated with people. Ultimately though, you are right that the Democrats are terrible storytellers, and they continue to lean more and more into data when that has been shown time and time again (in data! Oh the irony!) to be really ineffective. I like your point that the Democrats have to connect with feelings and I think that was what Kamala was trying to do by connecting to joy - she couldn't run on anger and fear when she was trying to essentially continue the last administration, with the exception about stoking fear about the other side. Thanks for responding!
Someone’s reality can and often does depend on the lenses through which THEY perceive their circumstances. “Data” isn’t what pays the household bills or puts food on the table. I believe many voted with their bank accounts in mind, which in many cases were smaller than several years ago. For reference, I am in a group on FB that consists of many middle to upper middle class income “grandmillenial” young women. Many of these are two-income families and they talk about struggling. Not necessarily with buying groceries, but thebability to purchase a home or to save for extras or their children’s education. This is their reality regardless what statistics may show. And, as we saw with the jobs reports corrections, perception actually was reality. My suggestion to the Dem party would be to get out of the DC bubble and work more on understanding rather than seeking to be understood. And, one last thing, as Sharon has stated, if feelings aren’t facts, perhaps the message of “JOY “wasn’t the best route, in hindsight.
I think you make really good points here, and will dig in on this a bit with regard to the complexity of things being “better” overall, but that not being everyone’s experience or perception.
I live in a rural area in a rural state. My state’s poverty rate is 18.9%, the county I live in has a 20.2% poverty rate, and in October of this year, my county had a 5.4% unemployment rate. The closest city to us had a 7.1/10 score on crime.
The people falling in those percentages do not see evidence of things being better. The talk about being able to afford basic necessities was very very real to them, much more so than ideological issues that do not impact them daily. That doesn’t mean these people don’t or didn’t care about rights or social issues, but many of them don’t have the luxury of political activism.
So when it comes to perception: if they see someone in the government speaking on things that matter to them and impact them — whether we believe they’re being played or lied to doesn’t matter. They feel like someone is listening and that is powerful motivation.
So basically DJT, GOP, MAGA all lied about the state of the economy, crime, immigration, inflation, the reason for the price of groceries and the dems needed to campaign like the lies were true and tell people how they were going to fix it ?!
I agree with this, Emily. I would also add, Harris was often simply not effective as a speaker. I think she will forever be tied to the phrase “word salad”. Public speaking is difficult. I am not judging her intellect, just making an observation. Whether right or wrong, someone’s ability (or inability) to communicate can influence how they are perceived.
I agree, and I think it's a mistake when people say 'it was about the economy!' Harris had well thought out plans for the economy and Trump had "the concept of a plan." I think it's really silly for the Dems to continue to tie themselves in knots trying to talk more about something that they already DID talk more about than the other side does, in both '16 and '24, and ignore that Trump also ran an on aggressively anti-immigration platform, promising shock and awe mass deportation, as well as other fear and anger inducing things (supporting guns, bookbans etc). I'm not saying that the Dems should support those things, (and in fact this article bothers me bc it sounds like a lot of these nominees are suggesting moving to a more Republican-esque version), but I do think it's a mistake not to acknowledge what you're dealing with in your voting block.
“Democrats have abandoned the working class”
I became more politically informed when DJT came into the picture, so I am fairly new to all of this.
The quote above confuses me.
I am a middle class person and from my perspective the Dems especially the Harris campaign was all about the working class. From child tax credits, small business start up help and assists buying a home.
What am I missing?
From what I have seen/understood, it's the *perception* of support that was lacking in this most recent election cycle. Perception matters far, far more than facts, because it hits people in their hearts and their guts, and the Democrats do have a real messaging problem. As Donald Trump said (and polling evidence supports) he "won on groceries." The perception of the Republican messaging was one of understanding: "I get it. Food is expensive, you can't afford the things you used to be able to buy, the world feels scarier and less safe than it used to, and that really sucks. It's not your fault: it's Biden, he made the economy like this. It's the Democrats, they care more about making sure immigrants stay fed, not your kids, and they're wasting their time on 'diversity' and 'equality' when they could be focused on 'real' problems. We're going to fix it for you."
Meanwhile the perception of the Democrats messaging was: "Things aren't so bad as they seem! The economy is doing really well, actually. Crime is down. We know things are still hard, but we've been working to make them better. We just need to keep that work going!" It just didn't hit voters the same way, and that's being reflected worldwide as anti-incumbent sentiment continues to ripple around the globe. "We just need to keep on keeping on" is exactly the opposite of how many voters are feeling, so the Democrat's messaging as the party of 'normality' and 'stability' kind of backfired when what the voters really wanted is change - any change.
Right, but like, the economy IS doing well. Crime IS down. As Sharon always says, feelings aren't facts, and I want politicians who are honest with me about the state of the world, rather than creating a fear in me they have to solve. The Harris campaign DID talk about the economy, a lot. They talked about a number of policies that were actually going to make things better. I'm genuinely curious (I read a lot of your comments and I think they are great) - how should Harris have talked about it in an effective way? And what about what Trump did say about his plans - aside from his 'concept of plan' - like how we're going to round up and mass deport immigrants - that DID resonate with people?
I honestly don't know how we begin to untangle the web of distrust (for experts, the media, etc), address the poor literacy about the role and functions of the local/state/federal government, and break the information silos that got us to this point. I wish I did!
Because I do actually agree with this point: "As Sharon always says, feelings aren't facts, and I want politicians who are honest with me about the state of the world, rather than creating a fear in me they have to solve."
And my comment was only to point out this (rather uncomfortable) fact: perception matters more to voters. Human beings are wonderfully, delightfully, incredibly complex...and so is the world that we live in. Running on feelings and perceptions simply reflects voters' reality back to them, and that really resonates. So if the facts don't align with the voters' feelings, then the candidate running on facts likely needs to get buy-in from voters' feelings first *before* they can then effectively change voters' minds on those things that 'feel' true.
The question(s) would then be: Why did it feel true to say that the economy was struggling? (Because those individuals are truly struggling? Because Fox News was dedicated to making the economy seem as bad as possible? Both?) Why did it feel like crime was getting worse? (Because crime has gone UP in some areas, even if it went down overall, so people in those areas aren't convinced that everything is indeed getting better? Because they were told, over and over again, stories about crimes and criminals so they developed a perception of high criminal activity?)
Each question is another thread to untangle. Cutting through those threads with demagoguery is one method - the easy, less honest one - but truly unravelling them takes empathy and skill, and I don't think that the Democrats' messaging has always done that well. IMO.
I totally hear you. I keep getting stuck on the vile parts of his messaging - the mass deportations. The things about women. The desire to take away books and punish journalists - and that how resonated with people. Ultimately though, you are right that the Democrats are terrible storytellers, and they continue to lean more and more into data when that has been shown time and time again (in data! Oh the irony!) to be really ineffective. I like your point that the Democrats have to connect with feelings and I think that was what Kamala was trying to do by connecting to joy - she couldn't run on anger and fear when she was trying to essentially continue the last administration, with the exception about stoking fear about the other side. Thanks for responding!
Someone’s reality can and often does depend on the lenses through which THEY perceive their circumstances. “Data” isn’t what pays the household bills or puts food on the table. I believe many voted with their bank accounts in mind, which in many cases were smaller than several years ago. For reference, I am in a group on FB that consists of many middle to upper middle class income “grandmillenial” young women. Many of these are two-income families and they talk about struggling. Not necessarily with buying groceries, but thebability to purchase a home or to save for extras or their children’s education. This is their reality regardless what statistics may show. And, as we saw with the jobs reports corrections, perception actually was reality. My suggestion to the Dem party would be to get out of the DC bubble and work more on understanding rather than seeking to be understood. And, one last thing, as Sharon has stated, if feelings aren’t facts, perhaps the message of “JOY “wasn’t the best route, in hindsight.
I think you make really good points here, and will dig in on this a bit with regard to the complexity of things being “better” overall, but that not being everyone’s experience or perception.
I live in a rural area in a rural state. My state’s poverty rate is 18.9%, the county I live in has a 20.2% poverty rate, and in October of this year, my county had a 5.4% unemployment rate. The closest city to us had a 7.1/10 score on crime.
The people falling in those percentages do not see evidence of things being better. The talk about being able to afford basic necessities was very very real to them, much more so than ideological issues that do not impact them daily. That doesn’t mean these people don’t or didn’t care about rights or social issues, but many of them don’t have the luxury of political activism.
So when it comes to perception: if they see someone in the government speaking on things that matter to them and impact them — whether we believe they’re being played or lied to doesn’t matter. They feel like someone is listening and that is powerful motivation.
So basically DJT, GOP, MAGA all lied about the state of the economy, crime, immigration, inflation, the reason for the price of groceries and the dems needed to campaign like the lies were true and tell people how they were going to fix it ?!
Apparently not a winning strategy but maybe not a white man!
I agree with this, Emily. I would also add, Harris was often simply not effective as a speaker. I think she will forever be tied to the phrase “word salad”. Public speaking is difficult. I am not judging her intellect, just making an observation. Whether right or wrong, someone’s ability (or inability) to communicate can influence how they are perceived.
I agree, and I think it's a mistake when people say 'it was about the economy!' Harris had well thought out plans for the economy and Trump had "the concept of a plan." I think it's really silly for the Dems to continue to tie themselves in knots trying to talk more about something that they already DID talk more about than the other side does, in both '16 and '24, and ignore that Trump also ran an on aggressively anti-immigration platform, promising shock and awe mass deportation, as well as other fear and anger inducing things (supporting guns, bookbans etc). I'm not saying that the Dems should support those things, (and in fact this article bothers me bc it sounds like a lot of these nominees are suggesting moving to a more Republican-esque version), but I do think it's a mistake not to acknowledge what you're dealing with in your voting block.