Quote :

"Democrats are losing the battle for voters' hearts because the party's message lacks emotional appeal, according to a widely circulated critique of House Democratic communications strategy. 'Our message sounds like an audit report on defense logistics,' wrote Dave Helfert, a former Appropriations spokesman who now works for Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii). 'Why are we defending [the State Children’s Health Insurance Program] instead of advocating a "Healthy Kids" plan?' Helfert sent the memo this week to an e-mail list of all Democratic press secretaries and communications directors after staffers met on Monday to discuss rolling out the Democrats' latest message."

Quote :

"'Republicans have been kicking our rhetorical butt since about 1995,' Helfert wrote."

Quote :

"Helfert wrote a master's thesis in 2004 on how the Bush administration 'sold' the Iraq war to the public. He was the Democratic spokesman for House Appropriations from 2003 to 2006, when he left to teach at American University for a semester. He returned to the Hill this year to become Abercrombie's spokesman. He said he did not send the memo to the media. He's gotten about 30 e-mails applauding his sentiments, most of them short 'attaboys.' Staffers at the House Democratic Caucus, which is in charge of setting the Democratic message, were 'a little less than pleased.' 'I'm not trying to stage a coup,' Helfert said. 'I'm hoping leadership and some of the members will embrace these principles.' His memo is sharply critical of Republican policies but also suggests a neurological explanation for Republican message success: By using emotional appeals and warning of dire threats, Republicans can trigger neurons called 'amygdalae' in the temporal lobe, which is the seat of the 'fight or flight' response in the brain. 'Almost every Republican message contains a simple and direct moral imperative, a stark contrast between good and evil, right and wrong, common sense and fuzzy liberal thinking,' Helfert wrote. 'Meanwhile, we're trying to ignite passions with analyses of optimum pupil-teacher ratios.'"

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/internal-dem-memo-faults-party-message-2007-10-26.html

The last sentence reminds me of some of Gore and Kerry's speeches. I would continually find myself looking around for the No-Doz.

10/27/2007 6:09:46 AM

It's true.

But I don't think anyone should be complaining that some people are trying to keep the debate above a 5th grade reading level.

10/27/2007 6:33:00 AM

This thread deserves either an

[old]

or a

Captain Obvious Award for Thread of the Day



It's great that this guy was able to get an MS out of this, but it's really no secret that the Democrats have failed to politically articulate anything beyond 'We're not Bush'.

10/27/2007 6:56:55 AM

^ Okay--you've made your point. GTFO.

10/27/2007 7:04:39 AM

I'm just trying to figure out why you made a thread about this.

It's not new.

It's not even new to TSB.

So, what's your point?

10/27/2007 7:09:02 AM

^ This:

Quote :

"GTFO."

10/27/2007 7:25:58 AM

Great answer!

I'll only give it an A-...it needs more rolly eyes, foaming moonbats, and circle jerk references.

10/27/2007 7:28:17 AM

^ If you weren't such a fucking idiot troll, you would see that the article about the memo is dated October 26, 2007, which makes the article itself relatively new. But the fact that congressional Democrats can't hit their asses with both hands is certainly older.

10/27/2007 7:33:50 AM

Just because the article is new doesn't make the news itself new. This very topic (the Democrat failure to have a coherent, inspiring message) has been discussed before.

Quote :

"TSB is apparently now a daily "what insignificant shit did the dems do today that hooksaw wants to vagina bleed about"

10/27/2007 7:36:14 AM

^

Quote :

"But the fact that congressional Democrats can't hit their asses with both hands is certainly older."

Which part don't you understand, troll? Having trouble comprehending--again?

STFU.

10/27/2007 7:38:24 AM

Why did you make a thread about a news article with news in it that you know is old?

10/27/2007 7:42:51 AM

^


As I indicated, the article itself is not old.

Now STFU.

10/27/2007 7:58:46 AM

And, as I indicated, the content is old.

10/27/2007 8:01:11 AM

^ And nobody cares what you indicated.

10/27/2007 8:06:14 AM

Why did you make a thread about a news article with news in it that you know is old?

10/27/2007 8:21:31 AM

hooksaw = dumbass

10/27/2007 1:02:52 PM

Democrats are losing support because they can't find a way to get a Child healthcare bill passed, let alone challenge the White House on Iraq.

10/27/2007 3:17:37 PM

as a bitter, angry, and disaffected Democrat...

I wholeheartedly support this thread.

Quote :

"'Republicans have been kicking our rhetorical butt since about 1995,' Helfert wrote."

call him Captain Obvious or whatever, its the damn truth. and the fact that

Quote :

"Staffers at the House Democratic Caucus ... were 'a little less than pleased.'"

to hear it, just underscores the importance of repeating it.

Quote :

"Boone : But I don't think anyone should be complaining that some people are trying to keep the debate above a 5th grade reading level."

you are, on one hand, absolutely right. on the other hand, consider what you learned from basic Public or Presentational Speaking. In order to make a successful argument, there are Three (3) Rules:

(1) Consider your audience

(2) Consider your audience

(3) Consider your audience

10/27/2007 6:52:18 PM

^^ The whole Turkey thing was an effort to thwart the Iraq war, and people complained about that. I don't think people really know what they mean by "challenge the Whitehouse on Iraq." The Whitehouse, under no circumstances, is going to spontaneously agree to a withdrawal. It is going to have to be a forced or phased plan to coerce a withdrawal.

But, I agree with Boone...

Quote :

"But I don't think anyone should be complaining that some people are trying to keep the debate above a 5th grade reading level. "

On this point. But, realistically, people respond more to catchy sound bites and fear mongering than reality. If that is Helfert's point, this impugns the Republicans more than Democrats, but if Democrats want to win, I guess they'll have to embrace those marketing tactics even more.

10/27/2007 9:28:27 PM

^^ Thank you, schmoe. He has demonstrated that one doesn't have to necessarily like me or even agree with me to recognize the truth. Those that are attacking me in this thread are being nothing more than disingenuous partisan hacks.

Quote :

"But I don't think anyone should be complaining that some people are trying to keep the debate above a 5th grade reading level."

Boone

Keep calling potential Democratic voters stupid--FTW! [/sarcasm]

The S factor explains Bush's popularity

Quote :

"It's the 'Stupid factor,' the S factor: Some people -- sometimes through no fault of their own -- are just not very bright. It's not merely that some people are insufficiently intelligent to grasp the nuances of foreign policy, of constitutional law, of macroeconomics or of the variegated interplay of humans and the environment. These aren't the people I'm referring to. The people I'm referring to cannot understand the phenomenon of cause and effect. They're perplexed by issues comprising more than two sides. They don't have the wherewithal to expand the sources of their information. And above all -- far above all -- they don't think."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/155107_firstperson05.html



And so on. GG!

10/28/2007 11:32:46 PM

^ But am I wrong?

"Almost every Republican message contains a simple and direct moral imperative, a stark contrast between good and evil, right and wrong, common sense and fuzzy liberal thinking"

Is this not what made the GOP so successful? And is it not dumbing down the debate, or at least appealing to voters' irrational side?

10/29/2007 1:33:21 AM

^

Quote :

"dumbing down the debate"

See? You can't help yourself.

Not only do many liberals think that their politics makes them better people than the rest of us--they think it makes them smarter, too. This elitist attitude worked well for Gore and Kerry, yes?

If you liberals are so smart--as you claim--why have the Republicans been kicking your rhetorical butt since about 1995, as the author above claims? It's a simple question.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 1:52 AM. Reason : .]

10/29/2007 1:50:38 AM

^ Why is this not the answer, as the thing you posted in the first post claims:

Quote :

""Almost every Republican message contains a simple and direct moral imperative, a stark contrast between good and evil, right and wrong, common sense and fuzzy liberal thinking" "

?

Boone is saying that this indicates that the right's message isn't smarter, as you seem to be implying, it just has more mass appeal, because people typically don't care to think too deeply in to things. If you are saying that people are in fact thinking very deeply about politics, and are deducing after careful consideration for the past few years that Republicans have been right, then you are delusional. If this was the case, then the dems wouldn't have won congress this last go-round. The reasons the dems won was because the message "hey look, Bush screwed up the Iraq war" is easy to digest for the common people. Karl Rove admitted in an interview that this was the basis of his "flip-flopping" campaign against Kerry. IIRC, he used the word "childish" to describe it, but he knew that it would work.

It's also a right-wing myth that liberals are elitist. The republican rhetoric is at LEAST as elitist as the democrats. Both sets of politicians look down on the common man, but this is more due to their social backgrounds than their political platforms.

10/29/2007 2:00:28 AM

Interesting, it's been a staple of the Dems platform to look out for the have-nots through social programs and expanding health coverage yet the economically well to-do that back the Republican platform don't want redistribution of wealth in any way, shape nor form to the masses and somehow the left are the elitists.

10/29/2007 2:34:54 AM

^

Quote :

"Not only do many liberals think that their politics makes them better people than the rest of us--they think it makes them smarter, too."

10/29/2007 2:39:40 AM

Interesting, it's been a staple of the Dems platform to look out for the spiritually repressed through social programs and expanding religious tolerance yet the self-rightous, "morally superior" Christian well to-do that back the Republican platform don't want religious independence in any way, shape nor form to the masses and somehow the left are the elitists.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 2:56 AM. Reason : *yawn*]

10/29/2007 2:55:13 AM

hooksaw = dumbing down the debate

10/29/2007 3:47:41 AM

^^ I am neither a Christian nor a Republican, so I can't speak for what they want. But "religious tolerance" by the Democrats--are you joking? Yeah, the Democrats are tolerant of everybody except people who disagree with them.

^ Is that all you've got, motherfucker? STFU.

10/29/2007 5:01:40 AM

^ Yeah, that's all I got... because you don't ever answer questions. If you could ever actually respond to someone's argument against you, I might be able to respond with a rebuttle. Your inability to realize an argument presented before you/your refusal to actually respond to it leaves me in a situation where all I can really do is call you stupid or call you out on not using rational thought. GG

10/29/2007 5:13:29 AM

^

Quote :

"rebuttle"

Yeah, and I'm dumbing down the debate, you stooge? PLEASE STFU!

10/29/2007 5:25:42 AM

You're too dumb to realize, but you just proved my point.

10/29/2007 5:31:39 AM

Quote :

"But I don't think anyone should be complaining that some people are trying to keep the debate above a 5th grade reading level."

Agreed, but this is a sad commentary on the public in general.

I have a friend who works for a Democrat organization and we were discussing this weekend that, right now, the Democrat's electability rests largely on the campaign slogan: "Hey, at least we're not those guys."

Quote :

"By using emotional appeals and warning of dire threats, Republicans can trigger neurons called 'amygdalae' in the temporal lobe, which is the seat of the 'fight or flight' response in the brain. 'Almost every Republican message contains a simple and direct moral imperative, a stark contrast between good and evil, right and wrong, common sense and fuzzy liberal thinking,' Helfert wrote. 'Meanwhile, we're trying to ignite passions with analyses of optimum pupil-teacher ratios.'""

Both parties do this. I swear, if I hear "think about the children" one more g-ddamned time I'm . . . well in all honesty I'm just going to roll my eyes. But still.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 7:17 AM. Reason : "]

10/29/2007 7:16:42 AM

^ Hell, Bill Clinton perfected that phrase--right down to the lip bite.

10/29/2007 11:03:14 AM

I think candidates in both parties engineer their platforms to obtain the most votes. Even though a lot of aspects would actually "benefit" a good chunk of the Republican voting populace (aka rednecks, rural christians) they identify with the ideologies of the republican candidates and are easily swayed by their white v black rhetoric as well as fear mongering about the turrists coming to blow them up or the immigrants "taking our jobs." ProtoTypical working class Red voters ignore the inequality that the economic polices and tax cuts by their candidates in particularly Bush help the upper classes instead of themselves. I believe the reason for this is that deep down they mistakenly see themselves as a part of the upper echelons of our socioeconomic structure or think they will get their one day. (before hooksaw and treetwista10 try to troll my post my viewpoint above neglects "educated" and the "upper class" people who are republican supports)

The democrats then go around trying to appeal to the minorities and hippies of society preaching some magical green pollution free utopia where every crackwhore can get free health care and money. As well as trying to sway the young professional crowd by acting more intellectual and trying to be seen as a voice of rationalization against the Christian lobbyist that often support Republican candidates.

10/29/2007 11:20:52 AM

^ I don't troll anybody, man. You need to get that bullshit out of your metaphorical mouth right now.

10/29/2007 11:28:25 AM

^^^

Quote :

"Yeah. . .BUSHCLINTON DID IT!!!1 I'M A BIG HATE FACE!!!1 HUUUUURRRRRRRhoooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkssssssssssssaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwww. . .*gasp*. . .rrrrrrrr."

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 11:59 AM. Reason : ]

10/29/2007 11:59:07 AM

^^ i think you proved yourself a hypocrit in the other thread

10/29/2007 12:00:50 PM

^^ TROOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLL. . .*cough*eat shit*cough*. . .lllllllllll. . .l!!!1

^ What thread, dick? I'm not a troll or a "hypocrit" (sic)--post a link, how about it?

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2007 12:16:57 PM

lolcano; i think we touched a softspot. hooksaw is on troll berserk!!!

10/29/2007 12:48:02 PM

^ You got nothing.

10/29/2007 12:57:01 PM

hooksaw, please stop trolling TSB.

10/29/2007 1:01:04 PM

^

10/29/2007 2:01:22 PM

Stop

10/29/2007 2:03:23 PM