Elections are the art emotioneering, and we can use a refresher course

[nashville_brook]

Electioneering is the art of emotioneering.

Elections aren't won or lost on rational arguments or solid logic that lays out pristine policy initiatives. Elections are won and lost in proportion to emotional content. Voters reward the candidates who best reflect their emotional sensibilities...their moral center. A swing voter is nothing more than a person who doesn't want to understand policy debates (who does, really). Swing voters aren't "centrists," as is there's some magical gooey center to the American political spectrum. Linguistics guru George Lakoff puts it this way:

The "swing voters" are really "swing thinkers." And it is language -- moral language, not policy language, heard over and over -- that strengthens one political moral system over the other and determines how people vote. The Democrats need to reach the swing thinkers -- the people who are moral conservatives on some issues and moral progressives on others -- and strengthen their progressive moral views. The kitchen table arguments must become moral arguments as well -- arguments about freedom, life, fairness, and the most central of American values.

The heart of populism is being able to flip this switch: show people you're one of them because you share their moral core and are willing to take our moral core to Washington for us (this was Grayson's genius). As soon as you're spelling out policy points, you've lost.

Moral leadership is the art of political shorthand. We want to vote *for what's right,* and dammit, we'll reliably vote against our economic interest to do so. Conservatives do this all the time. How else do you explain how their impoverished masses vote time and again for the party of billionaires. My mother used to say we didn't make enough money to vote Republican. But, get enough people to believe that voting Dem will shake the moral foundations of the country and their empty their wallets every time.

This election democrats made it way too easy for the teabaggers and their GOP puppet masters. If ever there was a moral issue it was healthcare, but party leadership ran away from this as fast as it could, and when they did deign to discuss it, they discussed it in terms of policy. "Well you see, costs aren't actually going to hit us until 2014, by which time everyone's benefits will kick in..." blah blah blah. They tried to sell the policy when the policy was the weakest part. Healthcare reform is about the most basic of human rights -- your right to have a doctor when your life is in danger, and the right not to lose your home and family and life's savings doing so. To deny this human right is the closest thing we have to institutionalized evil if you don't count the mercenary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, it's right here at home.

Moreover ya'll - the moral standard bearers of either party are found at the margins of either party. They are the people who say "hell no we won't go to war." Or, "hell yes, denial of healthcare is tantamount to murder." Or, "fuckin'-A marriage is a human right." Our party made damn sure going into this election that our moral standard bearers were silenced through a series of disgusting attacks that kneecapped us going into the midterms (yes, the "professional leftist" thing -- I'm not over it). This was the single-most destructive action that could have been taken against our party and our party did it themselves.

We've got two years to figure this out, ya'll. We either find a way to bring the Graysons and the Feingolds back into the party, or we get used to these kind of defeats.

[H2O Man]

1. Recommended.

Well said.

[speppin]

2. Need the WH to stop calling Dems effing retards will be a good start. Gibbs

is still there who thinks many of us need drug testing!

[nashville_brook]

3. it's not just the insult, either -- it's the strategy.

stupid, destructive, heartbreaking.

[speppin]

27. yes, and heartbreaking is the ideal word to use. Thanks

[treestar]

5. Now here is an example of ignorance leading to emotional reasoning

First, he called their ideas retarded, not them. Second, Democrats is way too broad a term here. He only meant the professional left or the far left who were being unreasonable.

[nashville_brook]

6. right -- and the "ideas" are the moral core, so by insulting/dismissing them, they had nothing to

run on but policy technicalities...and...that doesn't win elections.

also -- and maybe more importantly...without the moral core, the policy minutia has no weight. if you're out there fighting for the moral core of the country, they'll cheer for policy details. without the moral argument, policy details are seen as a weak response to the overwhelming issues facing us.

[treestar]

7. It's very strange to hear the left claiming "morality"

And again, he disagreed with the ideas, so why the whiny indulgence in he personally insulted them?

[nashville_brook]

10. i'm not sure i understand -- did "he" (i assume Obama) disagree with HCR?

why not run on it as a moral issue?

[speppin]

26. I know he

was referring to the prof. left but he was wrong to do so. He was the one that was unreasonable.

[PVnRT]

57. Your ideas are retarded

Now, don't take that as a personal attack or anything.

[treestar]

4. No, we should quit catering to that and try to get people to think more

We've been catering to that for years, and it has dumbed down the electorate. It is easy to "permit" people to indulge in using their emotions, since that is easier and takes less work. But it's gotten to the point where the voters are just plain irrational, and that's not in their interests. And how could they get any dumber? And any more emotional? It's time to turn that around - it's hit bottom.

It is in the long run easier to work with rational people. Irrational ones - you can't figure out what will appeal to them, since it's not logical.

[nashville_brook]

8. actually -- that's not the case. we won 2008 with emotioneering. we lost 2010 without it.

[treestar]

12. If it were that easy, we'd have done it

Does not answer my point. Why should we let people indulge in their emotions on important questions? And how can it hit bottom any further?

[nashville_brook]

13. you can characterize successful electioneer as "indulging" emotions if you want

i hope the party comes off of this position, though, b/c it doesn't win elections.

[treestar]

24. You are leaving voters out of the equation.

Why continue to cater to emotions when we've reached rock bottom? When are these voters going to think? Why should they have to, when no one challenges them to? And it shows a total lack of respect for them, to the point where most of them just have a cynical view of throw the bums out. They don't bother to think because no one expects them to.

Add in a country where Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart are more important than the actual candidates and you have a group of voters that no logical plan can reach.

If it's just a trick or trade, then it's not all that important. Whoever plays the game best wins. So you're just saying we are like a football team that just didn't play as good a game, and we ought to improve our game. There's no substance to anything.

[nashville_brook]

35. on the contrary, it's condescending to tout "stimulus" when what voters need are JOBS.

the moral core is the truth of the matter. it's not manipulation -- it's being forthright.

[Dr.Phool]

40. It's called putting it into a context people can relate to.

You can do it honestly, or you can do it dishonestly. But, there are some buttons that need to be pushed. Just like in advertising.

You paint a mental picture. That's why the Republicans spend so much money on Frank Luntz. He creates a message of words and images. Some words are more powerful, and are understood in different ways. Lakoff offered his services to the Democrats, and was turned down. Big screw-up.

When I ran for office several years ago, and had a big speech at an event, I always kept a few of Bill Moyers speeches TIVO'ed. I'd study every nuance, voice inflection, pause, etc.

Most of us here are activists, and pay a whole lot more attention to what's going on in the world, than 95% of the population. Their only source of information for most issues is what they see in 30 second campaign commercials, and the nightly news, which to many is Faux.

Whenwe have a chance to get a point across, we'd better get it right the first time.

[nashville_brook]

41. holy crap -- i had no idea the party turned down Lakoff.

and you're so right about not getting "backsies" on messaging. once you've taken "stimulus" to market, it's nearly impossible to rebrand it as "reinstating the American Dream."

[Uncle Joe]

36. I believe you're selling the importance of emotion short, it's required for every activity

under the sun.

You can't get out of bed without emotional motivation, some people might suggest reason dictates this decision, but tell that to people suffering from depression.

I don't believe the OP is suggesting to abandon reason, but the best of reason should have a strong moral, emotional basis if it doesn't then I would suggest the reason is faulty.

I believe the key to success is in projecting to the people, the moral, emotional basis for the reason.

Politics is the ultimate game, with life and death consequences and it has rules to play by, but that doesn't mean there is no substance to it and just as a highly motivated average team can beat a lackadaisical superior team, the same happens in politics in spite of reason dictating otherwise.

[nashville_brook]

45. for example, shampoo is sold as you want to "experience the healthy clean" -- that's much different

than "it'll get the dirt out." both are true, but only one is going to is going to be competitive in the market.

the really interesting thing about branding/marketing is that is doesn't work without a solid rational base. good marketing people won't touch a client who doesn't grasp this. if you have a shit product, or an unreasonable perception of its value, you're going to get shit marketing b/c you've got "bad facts" to work with.

just to belabor the point about research/data/logic/etc wrt marketing...these are the items in our palette. They are the pieces that become the final brand. Messaging only works when it uses true research/data/logic because that's what will *resonate.* and that's what you want...you want the "ping" of resonance.

[Hello_Kitty]

47. People are irrational by nature.

Even people like you who think you are the epitome of steely-eyed pragmatism. You make more decisions on emotion than you realize. You just rationalize them.

[nashville_brook]

49. the very best messaging is that which "is just the way it is."

it's self-evident.

[WillyT]

9. K & R !!

:hi:

:kick:

[MrModerate]

11. I'm not sure that emotional sensibility and moral center are synonymous.

There's substantial overlap, but I think people spend much more time rattling around in their personal emotional space and much less cataloging their morals. If pressed, half-thoughtful people could probably reliably fill out a multiple-choice questionnaire that helped defining their values. But day-to-day? That's a steady grind of addressing Maslow's hierarchy and managing emotional ebbs and flows.

That having been said, though, the article is dead right. Emotional appeals (somewhat more sophisticated than "my opponent is a troglodyte liar who you should fear"), underpinned by traditional progressive values ("morals," if you will) are what will win in 2012.

Which is not to say that we shouldn't be ready to fling turds at the turd-worthy, and I predict there will be no shortage of scat-bombs after two years of a Republican House.

[nashville_brook]

53. it's really as easy as saying "jobs and tax cuts" instead of "stimulus"

the administration has done a really awful job of communication, and it's an amazing thing for the team that carved out new ground in their campaign branding. i'd love to know what the problem has been on the inside. what would be so hard about going out and "selling" the turnaround in the economy...or the job gains...or improvement in auto manufacturing for the US? these are real victories, but the only people talking about them are progressive bloggers who have heard nothing but disdain from Team Obama.

[MrModerate]

54. Two words: Rahm Emmanuel. Worst.Advisor.Ever n/t

[nashville_brook]

58. couldn't agree more.

[LiberalLovinLug]

60. What did you think when he was first appointed?

In those first heady days? I thought "Great!" He needs a strong bull dog to work the Democratic representatives to push through Obama's PROGRESSIVE agenda. Sadly it soon became obvious that there was no agenda of the sort, only a plan to transform the moderate>left Obama the campaigner into a moderate>right Obama President. Rahm was there to shut up the voices from the left, both inside the party and out.

The Plan was that Obama was going to surprise everyone with his bipartisan olive branch and get a lot done together with his new friends in the GOP. His move to the right would be a political shock and awe, and even FAUX News would begrudgingly praise Obama's pragmatism.

It didn't quite work out that way. The more Obama moved to the right, the further McConnell, Boehner, et all moved the goal posts. To "prove" they were really really really more right wing than FAUX News gave them credit for, they publicly slagged their own base, with Rahm in the lead. brilliant!

[Tatiana]

14. I agree. This is why Manchin won in WV. Progressivism didn't lose last night.

Yes, the losses of Grayson and Feingold hurt like hell. But last night was a night where at least 26 of the 50-some-odd Blue Dogs went down in flames.

Kucinich won.

Frank won.

Leahy won.

Boxer won.

Kaptur won.

A whole host of unabashedly progressive members of Congress WON and won EASILY.

Tweety can be slightly insane sometimes, but he made some good points yesterday including this one: Democrats seemed to have forgot the art of political campaigning. Look at Harry Reid. Everyone thought he was dead. He was not the most inspirational candidate, but he won because he went back to basics: union support, minority outreach (especially w/ latinos), and boots on the ground. He honestly never projected an air of fear or desperation. I have to admit, even when his poll numbers were at their worst, Reid appeared steady and confident. Harry was Harry - love it or leave it. He didn't try to be something he wasn't. That worked with Nevadans.

I think we lost for many reasons: it was a midterm and losses were inevitable, Democrats did not have a cohesive national message (other than "the other guy is so much worse -- don't give him the keys back!!!!), we did not have a strong DNC or DNC chair that could make up for OFA's lack of roots in rural and Southern areas.

And, to a lesser extent, I believe the President's unpopularity in certain regions played a factor. That was why Dean's strategy was so effective. His southern/rural outreach focused more on building relationships with candidates at the local level so even when the Democrat brand did not play well in certain regions, candidates running as Democrats were still competitive and had opportunities to win.

[nashville_brook]

16. the GOP and CoC were able to target Grayson with Big $$ b/c the party abandoned him

he was public enemy number one for the Red Devils, and our party didn't fight that machine.

[DirkGently]

39. Didn't help his district is a ridiculous Republican gerrymander, either.

[nashville_brook]

42. yep -- here's the map

[nashville_brook]

43. shit, i didn't realize The Fightin' Eighth goes down into Osceola...see that little nib?

Osceola is the county below Orange, btw. The only other blue Central Florida county this cycle.

[DirkGently]

44. Orlando's a metro, the rest are increasingly rural, low-density areas.

Effectively nullifies Orlando's more liberal tendencies by lumping in traditionally conservative rural voters.

[nashville_brook]

52. i think this is where the churches really stepped-up for Webster.

[DirkGently]

15. Well said. The blue dog flame-out speaks to the failure of walking softly and carrying no stick.

[AndrewP]

17. +1

[Romulox]

18. "Healthcare reform is about...your right to have a doctor" --That's not what we got though

"Healthcare reform is about...your right to have a doctor"

We got the right to be forced to buy insurance. Not really the same thing. :shrug:

[nashville_brook]

19. quite true -- but, you sell the shit you brung. the GOP isn't going to rid the world of socialism...

but they're going to run as if that's exactly what they're doing.

[Romulox]

22. The problem becomes circular. It's difficult to sell bad policy. nt

[nashville_brook]

31. absolutely. you can't run on your moral core and then govern from the back room.

which is exactly what we saw happen with HCR.

[nashville_brook]

20. need to add... without moral standard bearers like Grayson, we'll never get real moral policy

which in my darkest moments i think was the point.

[Mimosa]

21. K&R As usual, you nailed it, Nashville_Brook. n/t

[nashville_brook]

23. :) -- thanky!

[CommonSensePLZ]

25. Somewhat disagree, but recommended

I know the republicans love psychological warfare and that nothing is beneath them when it comes to that, but I DON'T want the democrats to become emotionally manipulative like conservatives, business people and religious zealots, there needs to be someone out their standing for sanity, exposing the coercion and deception and letting the people understand that they CAN learn and understand the laws and legal double-talk some politicians try to do to confuse people - I think THAT'S good moral leadership, by example.

Let's not copy the republicans, just look where they are: A party of rich, white, self-identifying Christians who consider themselves the "family values party" that's the 'moral title' they've given themselves when in actually they're generally with some exceptions sanctimonious, gun-toting, swindler-supporting bigots.

Secondly when it comes to having these discussions of morality I agree that it's important, but these things often turn to arguments with one person just trying to shout the other person down to win, not prove that they've thought about the topic at hand more critically. When we tried having these discussions in town halls last years over health care the republicans brought guns.

I'm recommending this because for one, this is written very well, and two you make some good points, like explaining what drives the swing voters (though we did already know that) and I love this one:

"Conservatives do this all the time. How else do you explain how their impoverished masses vote time and again for the party of billionaires. My mother used to say we didn't make enough money to vote Republican. But, get enough people to believe that voting Dem will shake the moral foundations of the country and their empty their wallets every time."

I think we've got some good moral leadership as is: We don't believe corporations should rule America instead of the law and the people, we don't believe in intolerance, we believe in giving all Americans a fair chance, the republicans can't really claim any of these things.

[nashville_brook]

30. we should mistake running on our moral core, with the moral bashing the GOP/TEA practices

Think Wellstone. Think Feingold. Think, we hold these truths to be self-evident. Rather than, we hold those other guys to be evil. Or, we are morally superior.

If the issue is the economy, the moral core is people who are suffering, a lost generation who won't attend college, have jobs or contribute. If the issue is Social Security, the moral core is this is a sacred trust we made long ago...a promise that is reasserted every paycheck when that money is taken out. If the issue healthcare, the moral core is that we won't let people die and families be devastated financially b/c of illness.

We actually have the moral high ground on every issue. We need to sell them as such, instead of allowing the bad guys to lie their way into power.

[laughingliberal]

28. K & R for NB nt

[Zenlitened]

29. K&R for an interesting OP with interesting responses. - n/t

:)

[nashville_brook]

38. messaging is my business -- i could talk about talking all day!!

and, i think this is a place in the "debate" where no one really has any skin to lose. we have to fix things...lets figure out how.

[BeFree]

32. Sorry Brook

But this country is immoral.

More than half are lying, cheating bunch of racist dumbasses.

Afraid to get involved except to buy more bullets, and wont to just sit back and blame everyone else for their problems.

Guerilla politics that blends into the general population is the only answer.

[nashville_brook]

34. emotioneering is the "tip of the spear" of smashmouth politics

i'm depressed as hell about last nite...and most of the time i'm a misanthrope in good standing. but, i think that the only thing this country has is its illusory grasp of morality. and to tap into that power takes CONFRONTATION. anything worth believing in is worth looking like an asshole for.

with no moral center there's no clear leadership narrative. you look like you're playing Whack-A-Mole, b/c that's exactly what you're doing.

I love this last paragraph of a article in HuffPo on our lack of narrative:

What Democrats have needed to offer the American people is a clear narrative about what and who led our country to the mess in which we find ourselves today and a clear vision of what and who will lead us out. That narrative would have laid a roadmap for our elected officials and voters alike, rather than making each legislative issue a seemingly discrete turn onto a dirt road. That narrative might have included -- and should include today -- some key elements: that if the economy is tumbling, it's the role of leadership and government to stop the free-fall; that if Wall Street is gambling with our financial security, our homes, and our jobs, true leaders do not sit back helplessly and wax eloquent about the free market, they take away the dice; that if the private sector can't create jobs for people who want to work, then we'll put Americans back to work rebuilding our roads, bridges, and schools; that if Big Oil is preventing us from competing with China's wind and solar energy programs, then we'll eliminate the tax breaks that lead to dysfunctional investments in 19th century fuels and have a public-private partnership with companies that will create the clean, safe fuels of the 21st century and the millions of good American jobs that will follow.

That's what Democrats stand for. It's time they said it.

ETA: link for the above --> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/what-created-the-populist_b_699960.html

[Uncle Joe]

33. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, nashville_brook.:thumbsup:

[readmoreoften]

37. K&R

[DainBramaged]

46. DA feets DA feets, we just got DA feets!

:rofl:

[Greyhound]

48. K&R. That's a big reason he Republiks are the default party.

Every national election for the last 30 years has been theirs to lose because the Democrats stopped standing for anything.
:kick: & R

[EFerrari]

50. K&R

[nashville_brook]

51. kicking for visibility

[nashville_brook]

55. morning kickee

[PVnRT]

56. K&R - more Democrats need to take Lakoff to heart

[Poboy]

59. k&r