When it comes to messaging from the Democratic Party, everyone's a critic (myself included). But few have done as much real research on the subject as Way to Win, a Democratic research, analysis, organizing, and fundraising group that came together in the wake of the 2016 election to make sure its mistakes were not repeated. I talk with co-founder and chief strategy officer Jenifer Fernandez Ancona about what works and doesn't.
I don't think the "democrats suck at messaging" narrative is quite right. I say this as a long-time tech messaging strategist; there is a big difference between having the right message and getting it propagated.
What you really mean is that the Dems have an ineffective PR machine. There's little wrong with the messaging and everything wrong with getting it delivered.
For a number of reasons, Democratic messaging is simply not covered in the media, mostly because the media is focused on (to use a Joy Reid phrase) "conflict and change."
Insane GOP culture war issues are immediately picked up and amplified by most of the media because they are sensational, offensive, drive page views and outrage, and make great WWE-like theater. How is it that the craziest, most incompetent elements of the GOP get the most coverage?
Who wants to write a boring story about the massive positive impact of the industrial and tax policies in the IRA when you've got Jewish Space Lasers operated by Drag Queens right there??
We have a weird dynamic in which Dems are expected to be the adults in the room, and are held accountable for getting things done, while Republicans are just expected to be obstructionist trolls and incapable of any positive impact; nobody expects them to be held accountable.
Look at virtually all climate coverage: the headlines "Dems fail to pass bill" or "Biden climate agenda in tatters" could (and should) have been "GOP dooms humanity and the planet" or "House Republicans with zero real policy agenda waste time attacking drag performers."
Go take a look at any/all US political coverage over last year. You will find thousands of column inches spent berating the Democratic Party and progressives for not getting enough done, and very, very little devoted to demanding answers from the GOP on healthcare policy, income inequality, climate change, etc.
US political coverage is mostly about inside-the-beltway commentary on the inter-party play-by-play. In other words, creating a fake debt ceiling debate and risking economic disaster to score political points is seen as a valid and successful tactic. It is scored on its effectiveness rather than its value or morality.
Yes, the Dems have a message delivery problem. But articles about that problem by the same media outlets that refuse to cover Democratic policies (Dr. Volts excepted!) are more than a little disingenuous.
This is the important point: *What you really mean is that the Dems have an ineffective PR machine. There's little wrong with the messaging and everything wrong with getting it delivered.* We can't rely on mainsteam media anymore to reach the passive news consumer. Here's a toolkit of strategies and projects (old and new) to suppress, compete with, and react to right-wing mis/disinformation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13mIKCgnfBcBawybCzn4MoCOOTZaK6tLG/edit Got any to add?
When did you switch from being an energy newsletter to being a Democrat booster? Also, consider that it may not be the messaging but the message itself.
Hey, what a great excuse to go over Dave's Greatest Hits, on Twitter:
2022 March 6
When voters hear about the *actual Democratic agenda*, they approve. Too bad they almost never hear about it.
May 22, 2023:
As I say over & over, there's no clearer way to understand the contrast between America's two political parties than by looking at what they do when they control state gov'ts. Dems solve real problems; Republicans gang up to visit cruelty on vulnerable out groups.
(same day)
The Dem trifecta in Minnesota just passed an enormous, historic transportation bill -- the third of their three big climate bills. Lots of direct state funding for transit; money for rail; big tax credit for e-bikes; requires MNDOT to consider climate.
Which is summed up by:
Feb 22, 2023:
Climate Cabinet notes that all 12 states that have legislated 100% clean-energy goals have done so with a Democratic trifecta. If you want more clean energy in your state, give Dems control of gov't. It's the only thing that reliably works.
========
In brief, sir, Dave's been an ardent, vehement, caustic Democrat booster since he was able to speak freely after starting his own small business. I imagine that Dave would allow polls to speak to the issue of whether the message itself is unpopular. (It isn't.)
I am looking forward to the transcript for this one! (Thanks again for the work you're doing on transcripts.)
Just in terms of the possible reasons you listed, I think another one is just a certain feedback loop that is fundamentally different between the two groups.
Group A (conservative, Republican, right-wing, including alt-right) tends towards being fearful and easily manipulated. They respond well to scary and authoritarian things, providing clicks and shares and monetization. Because they respond well to this, there is a large market that focuses on squeezing money out of them. They enable the product which then caters to them and around it goes.
Group B (liberal, Democratic, left-wing) tends towards being more rational and fact-based. This is not to say they're not emotional! But it's *harder* to squeeze the money out of them. The emotions tend to be along the lines of "holy crap can you believe how ridiculous this other stuff is/ how bad those other guys are?" which gets shared but contributes to the Group A feedback loop by 1) making them feel persecuted (more fear) and 2) spreading the bad info.
Ben Collins recently said we (Group B) have to "tell better stories," and I thought his whole piece that came from was good, but, like, how? We are not going to turn around and say that actually Donald Trump is the head of a baby-eating cabal, and what's more, if we did, the Group B people would scoff at it. But Group A really believes that shit about Hillary Clinton!
I don't really know if there's a solution, but I think this inherent difference in audiences is often ignored.
Anyway, all of this is before reading the podcast, which very well might address all of this - hope so! It's maybe the single biggest issue of our time, since so many other things depend on what sort of information the general public receives, and how that shapes their opinions - and voting patterns.
Looking forward to this. But even before listening, I have to offer Canadian listeners a link to The Tyee, a paper examining why the left-wing party in Alberta, the NDP, was unable to beat conservative candidate Danielle Smith, who has offered many batshit MAGA opinions as a radio host. They thought they could run on how crazy she is, and lost. The Tyee opines that they should have run on their policies, which poll very well:
For Americans, Alberta is "our Texas" only more dependent on oil, more defensive about it, and the source of many of that "Convoy" you read about. The new premier was elected after saying:
- those who vaccinated were like 'good Germans' under Hitler
- unvaccinated are the most-discriminated-against group in her lifetime
-hydroxychloroquine can cure 100% of COVID cases
- said we should be neutral in the Ukraine war
(thought we had her there, her rural Alberta power base has a lot of Ukrainian farmers...)
Dave was expressing alarm on Twitter about Alberta. Dave: you skim the article and be reassured. There's a great deal of political inertia in Alberta, and a great deal of fear about losing good fossil jobs, that Notley kind of caved to. There's not a lot of fascism. And yesterday's Tyee article was about how this is Alberta's last Conservative government, because of shifting demographics are destiny.
We need to listen to these people who conduct focus groups to figure out what message persuades people to vote. People like me who have voted for Dems in every election since I turned 18 are not the audience for the message. We need to motivate and persuade people who are registered Dem but do not routinely vote, independent voters, low information voters of any party, and yes, never Trumpers.
OK, Dave, you finally got me to subscribe by devoting a whole podcast to Jen Ancona's wisdom. She's the real deal, and when Dems start listening to her team is when the wins will increase and that great sucking sound will diminish.
I think that the January 6th committee hearings, televised, had great content, as well as great delivery by the Dems. I am sure that there will be a repeat of this type of content and delivery as the '24 election nears.
A second potential irony is the Way-to-Win analysis ending with the need to ensure that "we the people" are represented by who we vote for. And yet the Democratic Elite is strongly supportive of the two-party system. We need to do away with districting as it provides incentives for gerrymandering, and winner-takes-all does not provide representation. We need more at-large elections. And if that moves some power from the Democratic Party to the Green Party, that's fine because it improves decmocracy.
I don't think the "democrats suck at messaging" narrative is quite right. I say this as a long-time tech messaging strategist; there is a big difference between having the right message and getting it propagated.
What you really mean is that the Dems have an ineffective PR machine. There's little wrong with the messaging and everything wrong with getting it delivered.
For a number of reasons, Democratic messaging is simply not covered in the media, mostly because the media is focused on (to use a Joy Reid phrase) "conflict and change."
Insane GOP culture war issues are immediately picked up and amplified by most of the media because they are sensational, offensive, drive page views and outrage, and make great WWE-like theater. How is it that the craziest, most incompetent elements of the GOP get the most coverage?
Who wants to write a boring story about the massive positive impact of the industrial and tax policies in the IRA when you've got Jewish Space Lasers operated by Drag Queens right there??
We have a weird dynamic in which Dems are expected to be the adults in the room, and are held accountable for getting things done, while Republicans are just expected to be obstructionist trolls and incapable of any positive impact; nobody expects them to be held accountable.
Look at virtually all climate coverage: the headlines "Dems fail to pass bill" or "Biden climate agenda in tatters" could (and should) have been "GOP dooms humanity and the planet" or "House Republicans with zero real policy agenda waste time attacking drag performers."
Go take a look at any/all US political coverage over last year. You will find thousands of column inches spent berating the Democratic Party and progressives for not getting enough done, and very, very little devoted to demanding answers from the GOP on healthcare policy, income inequality, climate change, etc.
US political coverage is mostly about inside-the-beltway commentary on the inter-party play-by-play. In other words, creating a fake debt ceiling debate and risking economic disaster to score political points is seen as a valid and successful tactic. It is scored on its effectiveness rather than its value or morality.
Yes, the Dems have a message delivery problem. But articles about that problem by the same media outlets that refuse to cover Democratic policies (Dr. Volts excepted!) are more than a little disingenuous.
Keep up the good work!
This is the important point: *What you really mean is that the Dems have an ineffective PR machine. There's little wrong with the messaging and everything wrong with getting it delivered.* We can't rely on mainsteam media anymore to reach the passive news consumer. Here's a toolkit of strategies and projects (old and new) to suppress, compete with, and react to right-wing mis/disinformation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13mIKCgnfBcBawybCzn4MoCOOTZaK6tLG/edit Got any to add?
When did you switch from being an energy newsletter to being a Democrat booster? Also, consider that it may not be the messaging but the message itself.
Hey, what a great excuse to go over Dave's Greatest Hits, on Twitter:
2022 March 6
When voters hear about the *actual Democratic agenda*, they approve. Too bad they almost never hear about it.
May 22, 2023:
As I say over & over, there's no clearer way to understand the contrast between America's two political parties than by looking at what they do when they control state gov'ts. Dems solve real problems; Republicans gang up to visit cruelty on vulnerable out groups.
(same day)
The Dem trifecta in Minnesota just passed an enormous, historic transportation bill -- the third of their three big climate bills. Lots of direct state funding for transit; money for rail; big tax credit for e-bikes; requires MNDOT to consider climate.
Which is summed up by:
Feb 22, 2023:
Climate Cabinet notes that all 12 states that have legislated 100% clean-energy goals have done so with a Democratic trifecta. If you want more clean energy in your state, give Dems control of gov't. It's the only thing that reliably works.
========
In brief, sir, Dave's been an ardent, vehement, caustic Democrat booster since he was able to speak freely after starting his own small business. I imagine that Dave would allow polls to speak to the issue of whether the message itself is unpopular. (It isn't.)
I am looking forward to the transcript for this one! (Thanks again for the work you're doing on transcripts.)
Just in terms of the possible reasons you listed, I think another one is just a certain feedback loop that is fundamentally different between the two groups.
Group A (conservative, Republican, right-wing, including alt-right) tends towards being fearful and easily manipulated. They respond well to scary and authoritarian things, providing clicks and shares and monetization. Because they respond well to this, there is a large market that focuses on squeezing money out of them. They enable the product which then caters to them and around it goes.
Group B (liberal, Democratic, left-wing) tends towards being more rational and fact-based. This is not to say they're not emotional! But it's *harder* to squeeze the money out of them. The emotions tend to be along the lines of "holy crap can you believe how ridiculous this other stuff is/ how bad those other guys are?" which gets shared but contributes to the Group A feedback loop by 1) making them feel persecuted (more fear) and 2) spreading the bad info.
Ben Collins recently said we (Group B) have to "tell better stories," and I thought his whole piece that came from was good, but, like, how? We are not going to turn around and say that actually Donald Trump is the head of a baby-eating cabal, and what's more, if we did, the Group B people would scoff at it. But Group A really believes that shit about Hillary Clinton!
I don't really know if there's a solution, but I think this inherent difference in audiences is often ignored.
Anyway, all of this is before reading the podcast, which very well might address all of this - hope so! It's maybe the single biggest issue of our time, since so many other things depend on what sort of information the general public receives, and how that shapes their opinions - and voting patterns.
Looking forward to this. But even before listening, I have to offer Canadian listeners a link to The Tyee, a paper examining why the left-wing party in Alberta, the NDP, was unable to beat conservative candidate Danielle Smith, who has offered many batshit MAGA opinions as a radio host. They thought they could run on how crazy she is, and lost. The Tyee opines that they should have run on their policies, which poll very well:
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2023/06/13/Four-Mistakes-Cost-Alberta-Election/
For Americans, Alberta is "our Texas" only more dependent on oil, more defensive about it, and the source of many of that "Convoy" you read about. The new premier was elected after saying:
- those who vaccinated were like 'good Germans' under Hitler
- unvaccinated are the most-discriminated-against group in her lifetime
-hydroxychloroquine can cure 100% of COVID cases
- said we should be neutral in the Ukraine war
(thought we had her there, her rural Alberta power base has a lot of Ukrainian farmers...)
Dave was expressing alarm on Twitter about Alberta. Dave: you skim the article and be reassured. There's a great deal of political inertia in Alberta, and a great deal of fear about losing good fossil jobs, that Notley kind of caved to. There's not a lot of fascism. And yesterday's Tyee article was about how this is Alberta's last Conservative government, because of shifting demographics are destiny.
We need to listen to these people who conduct focus groups to figure out what message persuades people to vote. People like me who have voted for Dems in every election since I turned 18 are not the audience for the message. We need to motivate and persuade people who are registered Dem but do not routinely vote, independent voters, low information voters of any party, and yes, never Trumpers.
OK, Dave, you finally got me to subscribe by devoting a whole podcast to Jen Ancona's wisdom. She's the real deal, and when Dems start listening to her team is when the wins will increase and that great sucking sound will diminish.
I think that the January 6th committee hearings, televised, had great content, as well as great delivery by the Dems. I am sure that there will be a repeat of this type of content and delivery as the '24 election nears.
The irony is that today the Republicans are literally calling for defunding the police. (In the form of the FBI and DOJ.)
A second potential irony is the Way-to-Win analysis ending with the need to ensure that "we the people" are represented by who we vote for. And yet the Democratic Elite is strongly supportive of the two-party system. We need to do away with districting as it provides incentives for gerrymandering, and winner-takes-all does not provide representation. We need more at-large elections. And if that moves some power from the Democratic Party to the Green Party, that's fine because it improves decmocracy.