No.
The GOP has a massive branding/image problem that goes way, way beyond “diversity” or running “black/Hispanic/women” candidates.
It took me a while to get this, but in essence, the GOP’s marketing approach is about 30 years behind.
Successful products, such as Nike (whatever your thoughts are about Nike) have invested in long term campaigns that appeal to the heart and emotion (”Just Do It”= success, overcoming, confidence, achievement). This is just one example.
Name the GOP’s “product.” You can’t. They don’t have one.
Trump does, to a point: “Make America Great Again.” But what does that really mean? It’s assumed it stands for a bunch of principles and programs. NO.
MAGA is a FEELING, a slogan that appeals to the heart and emotion that says “A great America is a good America.”
That’s wonderful as far as it goes, but “in general,” this is NOT reaching those under 50 the way it should. Why?
Nothing wrong with the slogan, but Rs have NOT explained in EMOTIONAL ways that grab the heart how a “great” America benefits Bill Smith the IT guy who doesn’t have health care or Suzy Jones, the single mother.
A “growing economy” and “money in your pocket” are NOT enough for the 21st century, because Millennials and those younger need to feel relevant, important. You must go further with MAGA to touch them by showing how money in their pocket allows them free time to serve at the soup kitchen, or to work less to clean up their local park or whatever.
MONEY and the economy has been treated by the GOP as an end of itself. The Dems figured out how to make “heart” appeals with nothing whatsoever to back it up-—but it is good for getting votes.
This is why the “We have a great economy” doesn’t win elections. Call it dumbing down, but ultimately it’s up to the Party and the Candidates to MAKE THAT CONNECTION.
Why do Tester and Manchin win? I don’t know either, but I’m guessing it’s 100% because they have made that “Clinton connection” that makes people feel special (it doesn’t matter if you think it’s dishonest, it’s what the people think). It’s the ONLY answer for these two douchenozzles.
Now, you have to throw out Zero. He was sui generis. There will never be another Obama because there can only be one “first black president.” No policy issues mattered because it was a “heart” statement that Americans could clean their conscience by voting for the black president. That only works once, and it is telling that Obama NEVER COULD TRANSLATE HIS OWN SUCCESS TO ANYONE ELSE IN THE PARTY.
I think there is a lot more to say on this, but if we continue to blame fraud, voting machines, public schools, or whatever-—even if some is true-—we will lose elections because so far the 21st century is all about the heart.
Great post.
I think I have an idea.
“All of us.”
I’m picturing a black single mom fixing her kids’ school lunches. “I want someone who is going to help make things easier for me to work hard and get ahead.”
Then a white male college student. “I want someone who will help me work hard and get a real job when I graduate.”
Then other people of all races and ages and abilities. A real mix or melting pot. Including white people. “All of us.”
The thrust is a candidate/party who wants to make the path to success and self-reliance easier. “All of us.”
Follow it up with ads showing people feeling divided by groups. “Stop dividing us.” “I don’t have anything against people who are different from me.” “We all want the same thing. A chance to get ahead.”
“A “growing economy” and “money in your pocket” are NOT enough for the 21st century, because Millennials and those younger need to feel relevant, important. “
Hogwash, with all due respect.
Republicans lost in the affluent suburbs because their “tax cut” was, in fact, a tax increase on the upper middle class in blue states.
Limiting SALT to pay for the Corporate cut was their downfall.
In a funny, roundabout way, you are both saying the same thing.
It’s an appeal to the emotions or an emotional connection (Larry calls it branding for the heart, DS implies a sexual aspect). Those can be the same thing. Particularly with female voters and younger voters (not us jaded old white men) an emotional appeal is often the ONLY way to get to them. And yes, a sexual fantasy aspect helps with that. Why do you think Pam Bondi is so popular...with men?
I think both of you are right...and in the long run, you have this nailed Larry, we have to bring an emotional value to conservatism and sell it. I think Trump and national anthem and the flag is part of that - but it’s still too rudimentary, we need something big, like maybe a manned Mars mission, or something demonstrative like that to show people what MAGA is and feel proud about it.
But, if the upliftingslogan is not enough, one can always come back to the traditional “Bread and Circus” for the mass of voters.
As the Romans found out as they lost their republic to the barbarian hordes and internal corrupt “leaders” like Nero and Elagabalus (Obama), Caligula (Clinton), and Domitian, Severus, Thrax (Gore - inventing fake enemies and fake crisis), Diocletian (Clinton II - had she taken control), Tiberius (Bush II and Jeb Bush too, for that matter), Caracalla (Shumer, Pelosi), Commodus (any of several lust-filled, moral-absent democrat Senators like Kenneday, ONeal, Menendez, etc),
To say MAGA is not a concrete and powerful product seems way off. Not buying it.
Try as I might, I find no way to take seriously any attempt to minimize the significance of democrat election fraud.
I’ve thought the GOP message should be FREEDOM or LIBERTY...but, then with that comes responsibility...so...who knows.
If you’re 100,000 votes behind towards the end of election day and then someone comes up with 110,000 neatly packaged, unverified votes, you go from losing to winning.
That’s how the democrats win.
Appeal.
What appeals to the voter?
What appeals to the young voter it not the same that appeals to the middle aged voter or senior voter.
One of Hillary’s major problems in 2016 was her running her campaign in 1992 mode. The 1992 mode had little appeal. She still managed to get just over half of the votes, however.
Republicans have always had an ‘appeal’ problem. They were perceived as the party of big business. Democrats ‘appeal’ was the party of the common man/little people/etc.
For decades, we have been yelling for the Republicans to seek professional marketing advice.
LS -ping
That is why Reagan was so popular. He could do that and he backed it up with action.
I think there is a lot more to say on this, but if we continue to blame fraud, voting machines, public schools, or whatever-—even if some is true-—we will lose elections because so far the 21st century is all about the heart.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
Powerful, true statement.
Money in their pocket empowers them to make a difference, because they aren’t fighting for their lives, and because it empowers them in a way that’s measurable.
Huge observation. My kids now see the connection between politics and their situation, but I’m conservative. Their friends have HAD IT with feminism.
They aren’t connecting feminism with liberalism the way they should be.
That’s another thing.
So, based on emotions. Gee, I wonder why that is? Dems know how to push the buttons of enough of a certain segment of voters to have an advantage. Without women voters, Dems would be DOA.
Thanks, LS. Well said.
“....but in essence, the GOP’s marketing approach is about 30 years behind”.
That’s for certain. A whole new strategy and appealing approach must be implemented. DJT is on the right track but it must be applied from the very bottom, up.
One key is that people must be made aware of how detrimental Leftist/Progressive policies are to them on a personal basis. Most cannot see the big picture so it must be brought down to a personal level that they can relate to.
Why?
"Make America Great Again" is a tug at the heartstrings of nostalgia. The "America" that was "Great" means something to you and me, but people who were born after 1990 never experienced it, so there are no heartstrings to resonate, no greatness to experience "again."
Why do Tester and Manchin win? I don’t know either, but I’m guessing it’s 100% because they have made that “Clinton connection” that makes people feel special... It’s the ONLY answer for these two douchenozzles.
Maybe it's because, to millennials, they are the "again" that fits their specific nostalgia. Manchin was the Secretary of State for four years, and Governor for six years before becoming their Senator for six years. He's familiar to West Virginians; he's their known quantity. It's not that Manchin connects in a "feel your pain" kind of way, it's just that they cannot envision a West Virginia without Joe Manchin being there. He's a part of the landscape.
Tester is a different story. I don't know about Tester.
I think there is a lot more to say on this, but if we continue to blame fraud, voting machines, public schools, or whatever-—even if some is true-—we will lose elections because so far the 21st century is all about the heart.
I think that to appeal to millennials, the message has to become:
YOU Make America Great Again!
Republicans have to paint a picture that tells millennials that they are what's needed to make America great, and show millennials what their place is in a "Great America."
Whether it's the jobs that millennials will fill, or the causes that millennials care about, or the opportunities that millennials will create for their own future children, they need to know how they fit into the vision of what makes America great, and how their predecessors did fit into the great America we're trying to get back to.
-PJ
Now, you have to throw out Zero. He was sui generis. There will never be another Obama because there can only be one “first black president.”
Except Obama was a middle/upper class kid from Hawaii and had Kenyan father. That is as far as you can get from an authentic black American experience. He does not have slavery in his family tree. Other than his white mother, of course. The first more typical black experience candidate will resonate just as much as the kenyan, unfortunately.