Repubs understand that politics is about BRANDING more than issues

There's a reason that * always has at least 30% of the population behind him no matter what he does. He's a Republican, and it's not just stubbornness that keeps some Repubs from admitting his faults. It's about brand identification. It's correct to say that most Repubs identify with their party the way people identify with a sports team. No matter how much they lose, they're never giving up on them, because their political affiliation is so wrapped up in the way they see themselves

This may seem like I'm stating the obvious, but the Democratic leadership seems to take the obvious for granted time and time again.

Republicans have branded themselves as strong, patriotic, stable, accountable, responsible, virile, rational, and proactive

They have branded the Democrats as weak, fickle, irresponsible, impotent, unorganized, unpatriotic, unstable, elitist, self-loathing, amoral, passive pushovers.

People vote based on which group they want to identify themselves with, WAY more than being right on the issues. Because there are two sides to every issue, and anyone can make either side sound palatable enough, no matter how absurd it seems to the other side.

I really wish elections were won and lost on issues, but that's just not the reality. Have any of you been frustrated by your seemingly educated, politically aware friends who don't know the basics of some of the hottest stories on the blogoshpere? If elections were won on issues, we would have nothing to worry about, but most Americans simply don't have the time and inclination to follow up on the logistical twists and turns of the stories they hear in the MSM.

Simply pointing to the issues time and time again, is like if Coke launched a huge ad campaign with superstar endorsements and flashy commercials, and Pepsi responded by sending a man in a suit to talk about Pepsi's nutritional information, and the process by which they made their soda being better than Coke's process.

Being right on the issues is worth something, but if the Dems don't wake up and learn how to MARKET THEMSELVES as the more intelligent, sane, in touch party, than we're toast.

Honestly, I think political ads could use some serious changes.

This will seem superficial, but honestly - they should start looking more like rock videos and reality shows than the traditional "Candidate X is good for the country" types.

Seriously - do a quick 5 minute ad that shows a worker getting laid off, shaky camera work, and then talking to them afterwards, how they feel - then go to "Candidate X - fighting outsourcing" for example.

You are right.

He wrote the forward to Lakoff's book, "Don't Think of an Elephant" which addresses the issues of branding and framing. I highly recommend all DUers read it. Here are some snippets from Dean's forward:

"Lakoff has written down, in language liberals can understand, what Ralph Reed, Newt Gingrich, and Frank Luntz intuitively realized a long time ago. Language matters...........By defining tax cuts as tax relief, the right also defined those were against tax cuts as essentially bad people............Americans who want to be first to set the agenda need to be quick, and must understand the use of language. Agenda setters also need to be unapologetic and unafraid."

...what are Gov. Dean and the DNC doing to put this knowledge into practice. Granted, we don't have the media cooperation that the GOP has. But, to the extent that we're able to get on the air, what are we doing to brand ourselves?

Republicans have proved to be fiscally irresponsible, intrusive in their domestic policies and overreaching in their foreign policy.

I think the public is ready for a trade in.

I do agree that the Democrats need to do a better job with PR/marketing.

They did it to Kerry, too. And it's why they had to "kill" Howard Dean. He was positively branding himself and becoming very popular.

and THAT is the real reason they are able to "brand" themselves and define the Democrats.

In 1992, Bill Clinton had 9 hours of broacast time during the Dem convemntion for the public to hear about him and his proposals. Kerry was given 3hrs. and one of those went to Clinton and one to Edwards.

Consider that Bush had been given THOUSANDS OF HOURS of airtime post 9-11. About 95% of that was cheerleading his policies and misleading the public that Bush was a man of strong character with impeccable integrity.

For many people, they need to live in absolutes. There are no greys, only black and white, right and wrong, evil and good. They have been taught/conditioned in a world of absolutes and this is where they're the most comfortable. It's a place where every question has an answer and one never questions the answers. It's a simple world with easy to understand and visualize "solutions" to every problem. It's a life based on characterizations that simplify things even further. Finally it's hammered into these people endlessly from pulpits, hate radio, Faux noise and christian radio.

When you try to challenge or logic with these people, it's like talking to a wall. They've been so indoctrinated with the fears and myths that any creative thought is considered downright evil. Thinking outside what is "normal" is not allowed as it confuses a long-set simple concept and isn't tolerated.

If you're looking for elections based on issues...pay attention to your local school board or city council. When you work your way up the political food chain the game switches from specifics to broad strokes. The Repugnicans have perfected the ability to avoid going to the broad strokes and have crafted specific, coded messages that are endlessly played in that "world of certainty"...yanking on every phobia and characterization in the book.

Yes, Democrats have a problem of marketing themselves...and now it's not because of a "lack of ideas" or issues...it's too many. Democrats have to stop being ashamed of who they are...and start showing some moxie and pride in not only being the true compassionate party, but also that we've been on the right side of all the important issues...and have been consistantly there. The time to play defensive is long over.

Cheers...

a client who was arrested for electrocuting and paralyzing a burglar. The law firm hired a media consultant to 'brand' the client. "An American Homeowner" was used as the brand name.

The show did a great job of depicting how both sides in the case worked hard to use the media to influence public opinion (the jury pool).

It's one of those shows that my husband and I both like.

but I don't have enough post count.:hi:

This is so true. Repugs have always been good at spin and propaganda, but the * Administration is the master of illusion. The * Administration has raised (or is it lowered) the bar regarding shameless lying and baseless propaganda.
However, I believe that the image of liberals and democrats is slowly improving among the general population. A lot of Americans still have good sense, despite being nearly brainwashed.

but they are also more realistic about what wins elections. They've been on this well-organized, consistent branding campaign for decades.

Repubs take their playbook from Psychology textbooks, while Dems take their playbook from Poli-Sci textbooks. Repubs are correct in thinking that psychology trumps politics. People care more about their self-image and self preservation, than they do about their nuanced political beliefs.

The ad from the '04 election that showed the wolves (terrorists) smelling out weakness (Democrats) was one of the most effective political ads I've seen. It cut right to the heart of what most people think is important. Self preservation AND, for men especially, not wanting to think of themselves as weak or soft. Nevermind the details.

What was the word for the Greek philosophers who made a practice of defending absurd principles in order to show off their debating skills? That's what's going on now in the MSM. Every news show presents an issue, then goes into a point-counterpoint. Each side makes a plausible argument, depending on which perspective one chooses to take (left-brained/right brained, or pragmatic vs. dogmatic), so the issue is obscured. The viewer will then consistently gravitate towards whichever party they identify themselves with. People don't like to change their self-identity, so they stay pretty consistent.

I think it's wrong to say these people are simply putting party before country. They identify so strongly with their party, if you attack the politician, you're attacking them. Therefore, they're putting self before country, not party.

Back to the sports team analogy. I am a huge New Orleans Saints fan. If you say something rude about Aaron Brooks, I do feel a little like you're attacking me, because I so strongly identify myself as a Saints fan--EVEN THOUGH Brooks is a terrible QB. It's like attacking a member of my family--I can say anything I want to, but you better lay off.

by Noam Chomsky
http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky03122005.html

Presidential candidate John Kerry's platform and program were way to the right of popular opinion on just about every issue in the 2004 U.S. elections. To the extent that anybody could even understand the program, people didn't favor it. People who voted for Kerry are people who were concerned about the economy and about health issues. Do you think those people could tell you what Kerry's health program was or what he was going to do for the economy? I mean, I couldn't tell you. You have to do a research project to figure out what the program was. And it's not that people failed to know it because they're stupid. It's because it was not presented as something comprehensible.

<snip>

The reason for this is that the parties try to exclude the population from participation. So they don't present issues, policies, agendas, and so on. They project imagery, and people either don't bother or they vote for the image. The Gallup Poll regularly asks, "Why are you voting?" One of the choices is, "I'm voting for the candidate's stand on issues." That was 6% for Bush, and 13% for Kerry ­and most of those voters were deluded about the positions of the candidates. So what you have is essentially flipping a coin. Each candidate got approximately 30% of the electorate. Bush got 31%, Kerry got 29%.

The party managers know where the public stands on a whole list of issues. Their funders just don't support them; the interests they represent don't support them. So they project a different kind of image.

If you listen to the presidential debates, you can't figure out what they're saying, and that's on purpose. The last debate was supposed to be about domestic issues. The New York Times commented that Kerry didn't make any hint about possible government involvement in health care programs because that position has, in their words, "no political support." Well, according to the most recent polls, 80% of the population thinks that the government ought to guarantee health care for everyone, and furthermore regard it as a moral obligation. That tells you something about people's values. But there's "no political support."

Why? Because the pharmaceutical industry is opposed, the financial institutions are opposed, the insurance industry is opposed, so there's "no political support." It doesn't matter if 80% of the population regard it as a moral obligation: That doesn't count as political support. It tells you something about the elite conception. You're supposed to vote for the image they're projecting. That's not surprising really. Just ask yourself, "Who runs the elections?"

<more>

First of all, Kerry's health care plan was entirely dependent on government intervention, so Noam Chomsky is a complete idiot when he says it wasn't mentioned. Yes, a complete idiot and I don't give a fuck who he is. The very first program Kerry introduced in 2005 was a government health care program to cover every child. So much for the corporate industry bullshit. Second, you could turn right around and ask that same public if they wanted a government run health care system and 80% would say NO. In addition, they would tell you that Bush proposed legislation to help people get health care, which is what they mean by government responsibility and moral obligation. They mean to create access that everybody contributes to, not a single payer federal program.

I would hope someone like Noam Chomsky is smart enough to know the difference. So you have to ask yourself, why does he lie?

The Republican game is about affirming older prejudices and old ideologies. There are an awful lot of people who want someone powerful Out There to affirm the things on which their egos are built...they know perfectly well at bottom that these things are untrue and obsolete in the world, but it's all they have and are. Many or most people are suckers for strong people who affirm and like their flaws and pretend these are virtues. That is the way egocentric and ego-damaged life is lived- between vanity, desperation, glory, and utter hatred. That has some political usefulness- these people can be employed to break down things that unsolid, bad and unsustainable compromises and expend themselves against certain kinds of enemies.

Democrats are more strongly on the side of reality and meaningful solutions. But reality makes every human effort seem small and inadequate. And reality- the great changes in the US since ~1970 or 1980- is exerting a huge amount of pressure on people whose egos are built on things that have become obsolete due to these changes.

Democrats have been pretty fallible and incrementalist about dealing with the paradox. Republicans won the fight for the average white American ego away from Democrats in the late Sixties and early Seventies, but Democrats had to keep playing that to stay in competitive and exert some influence/power.

Conservative Democrats politicked on the premise that the country hadn't changed since ~1965 in the Seventies and Eighties, and it worked until it finally no longer found buyers even in the South in 1994 and 1996. They were critical for keeping the Party in contention for power at the time, the controlling wing. They even defeated a more obsolete, Forties/Fifties, variety of Republicans, the moderate wing, in the early Nineties.

Moderate Democrats then had their heyday, going to the voters saying that the country hadn't changed significantly since ~1985. That was enough to knock the Gingrich Sixties/Seventies-centered conservative wing of the Republicans out of power in the late Nineties. But in 2002 and 2004 the Eighties/Nineties-centered hardline Right wing of the Republican Party did them in, and they're not the controlling wing of the Party anymore.

We're left with the two wings of the Parties that are most crassly opposed controlling each Party. The hardline Right is all about ego. Hardline Liberals are all about reality. Both are survivors and letting the means they champion finish off the power of the other elements in their Party, achieving a kind of purity.

The inter-Party fight for power and public opinion at the moment is all about ego vs. reality. Generally, Republicans win when ego needs are desperate or can be shown to be greater than the demands of reality. Democrats win when they champion reality and appeal to ego fails in the face of reality. That's pretty much the dynamic of the campaigns shaping up, the Democratic wins in 2005 and the motifs of 2006.

So I think that competing on the same terms is pretty pointless. We're at extremes and don't. But we do make forays- get a Democrat detached from his/her claim to understand reality and he/she loses. Get a Republican to damage the egos of his/her voters, he/she loses.

In the longer term, what the present Republican Party is built on as a politics is widespread/collective ego-boosting mythology and egotism invested in race, gender, wealth, and the Cold War centered from ~1945 to ~1990. That is a demographic with limits, even if it was a horrendous majority for a long time. We're now at stalemate and generational die-out means a constant trend to Democrats.

During the last two elections we had Gore and Kerry who were both well-versed on the issues and much more qualified than Bush. But instead of appealing to voters on a gut level (the branding thing), both Kerry and Gore would roll out long explanations of their positions, full of facts and statistics. IMO the average person doesn't want a president who explains the minutiae of government, they want a streamlined (dumbed down, as we would say) candidate who isn't going to burden them with lots of facts and figures. Voters are too busy trying to hold down their jobs, pick up their kids from Little League, and get a little recreational time before they have to do it all over agin the next day. Voters want someone who will handle the running of the federal government, and not ask a lot from them as far as time commitments. Most voters are not like us, they spend 15 minutes deciding who they are going to vote for. In this regard, a good packaging job is more important than the actual positions a candidate has (as long as their positions do not negatively impact the package).

I think many US voters are a little bit shallow.

Democratic ticket. And some other DU folks think so too, I've noticed.

supported by "Lutz" like characters who market-test words. This, in order to make sure that they can map those words onto the ideologies in such away that will sell "product" and uphold the status quo all in one big swoop.

When fighting fire in politics water just fizzles out. They suffocate the "market" with their ideologies and drown everything else out. Logically water puts out fire, but logic has yet to win an interpretive dispute.

Repubs: Reckless, fanatical, sadistic, frustrated, unscrupulous, hotheaded, stubborn, short-sighted, anti-American worker, anti-American families, rigid, meglomanical, authoritarian, fascist, xenophobic, callous, anti-intellectual, boorish, etc, etc.

Dems: Intelligent, sane, sensible, freedom-loving, new, healthy, fresh, brilliant, diplomatic, insightful, integrity, ethical, respectful of women, warm, accepting, inviting, democratic, rebirth of America, etc.

Are some of these words hypocritical? Sure. Has that ever stopped the Republicans? Hell, no!

Remember, Clinton didn't get elected primarily for his issues. He was a young, good looking, bright alternative to an old, stale, out of touch incumbent. His sax playing didn't hurt either. He was the Rock n Roll president with a sky-high IQ. The best thing a Democratic candidate can do is brand their intelligence as being cool and street smart, and not ivory-tower intelligence, a la Kerry. Because America really does seem to agree that Democrats are smarter, they just don't always see that as a good think. Clinton, Obama, and Dean seem to get that. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert definitely get it, and they probably have twice the approval rating of the highest Dem candidate.

We should NOT play the game of emotional manipulation - it is the wrong road. Period.

A GODLY MAN:

A MAN OF THE PEOPLE:

What is amazing is how the Republicans win on branding based upon false advertising.

They claim to be strong on defense, but failed to listen to the pre 9/11 warnings, responded to 9/11 by attacking the wrong coutnry (after too briefly going into Afghanistan and failing to finish the job), and ignored homeland security.

They claim to support small government, but they are responsible for huge increases not only in size of government but, more importantly, the degree of government intrusion in individual's lives.

They claim to support capitalism, while using their power to transfer wealth to the ultra-wealthy and to their major corporate supporters--something Adam Smith would hardly approve of.

We do have to admit one thing. The Republican noise machine has done a better job of advertising for them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=604211&mesg_id=604314

the Image wars was its name-O.

in the hip pocket of the repugs?

To: nuconvert
A presidential veto will be overriden. The White House can accept political reality, try to work out a deal it can live with or get run over.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")



3 posted on 03/08/2006 4:48:01 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

Branding is not just about superstar endorsements and flashy commercials. That's advertising.

Branding is who you are when you use the product. If that isn't appealing, then no amount of flashy commercials will make it any better. We've done a pretty good job at rebranding Walmart, so we obviously know how to do it. But nobody is working on making a brand for Democrats that will appeal to most of America.

The brand also has to have credibilty, there has to be a basis to believe that the brand you're being sold is true. Now some would say the Republican brand is a lie, but to those who believe in military strength and unregulated capitalism, the brand is exactly what they sold in reality. It's the ones who believed compassionate conservatism who have been lied to.

We're doing a fair job at branding these Republicans as corrupt and incompetent. But that is also branding US in the process. We have to be careful to be anti-corruption and anti-cronyism; and not the anti-business that we end up being branded with. That is the problem with anti-war, we end up being branded as weak and passive. So we're participating in our own branding. If we want to change our brand, we have to deal with that too.

most Murkans are lazy, intellectually and every other way and prefer to remain ignorant rather than, for example, to read a book.

he's ninety percent there. It can be bad, in terms of race identification, or neutral, in terms of favorite sons. And when a candidate can't be all things to all people, what does he do? He balances the ticket with a different race, or geographical location, or he gets an endorsment, or engages in a local activity with the right hat on.

Therefore I think that the branding as "wrong, or weak" comes after the identification of "us vs. them". Fact is, almost all pukes know that the dems are right on Bush and a lot of issues. But they would rather die than to share a moment with "them".

And the sports team analogy is absolutely right. You don't cheer the team because it's better. You cheer it because it's YOUR team and YOU want to have some fun with YOUR friends.

That's why it kills me when the militants on DU go out of their way to slander all christians (or in a moment of toleration, all religious believers). There's another us vs. them moment, where any person with even a passing knowledge of their own society would think that DU is from another planet entirely and that there's nothing in common. Anyone who has voices that sort of opinion wouldn't be trusted, or liked, or put up with, and anyone who hangs with that wouldn't be either. Just an example.

Learn how to frame every issue with two word answers.

On Repubs and race? New Orleans.

On Dubai deal? bushs National Security?

There is a guy who speaks on behalf of Dems in the Pittsburgh area. He is a master at this. I saw him on a local PBS show, dismantle a republican with surgical skill . It was effortless and a thing of beauty. He had learned these short answers which disarmed the other guy and gave him a chance to expand his point.

and framing.

Image will not ever save reality. An image is only an IMAGE, an imitation of life.

We will continue to be destroyed while we fine tune our little power point presentations and have our framing parties, while those on the other end of the spectrum are building up militaries and concentration camps for those who they don't like.

Wake up friend. We need to be in the streets not working on our latest frame.

explains the process of branding....it is an absolutely fascinating read, and after reading it, you can identify the branding that the repukes have done...successfully.