It is more than a little disquieting. One reads an assessment on the Democrats’ effort to “brand Trump” and their message against Trump in 2020 as an all-encompassing theme, and walks away both hopeful and more than a little depressed. Through comprehensive studies testing various themes and whether the theme moves independent voters, it seems that the strongest message moving voters is to note that Trump is an ineffective boob, in part, because he spends so much time on social media.
Well. Okay, but …
I will hear them out. From Sam Stein at DB:
Those who have worked on the messaging say that going after Trump for being a racist and for being distracted by Twitter to the point of ineffectiveness is not an either-or. But, they argue, the former comes with the risk of turning off his supporters by suggesting that they are comfortable with his worst traits, while the latter emphasizes a characteristic of Trump that virtually no one finds flattering.
Yeah, but … alright, go on, for now:
“I think only the hardest core Trump believers think he should spend more time on Twitter. But that is the reality of his presidency. For better or worse people think he spends most of his time on Twitter and the way he engages on it is mostly negative,” said Navin Nayak, executive director of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. “Juxtaposing that becomes a very powerful way of underscoring how he has not accomplished anything economically for the American people. Going after that is an effective way of attacking Trump without impugning the motives of anyone who voted for him.”
And there you have it. The triumph and tragedy. It appears we have found a way to unify the Left with the Independents and the moderate Right. Well done. Except the way to do it is to de-emphasize the man’s racism, crimes, and international disasters, focusing primarily upon an underlying “ineffectiveness”?
I guess I need to put out there right now that “de-emphasize” is used here with great purpose. No one is saying that the racism, the crimes, all that is acceptable or cannot be referenced, they are just saying that those “deplorable” traits need be subsumed into “ineffective” as the ultimate charge against Trump, and why he needs to be booted from office.
Okaayyy.
Again, glad we found something that unifies all “potential votes” for the Democrat nominee (because no one is counting the hard-core Trumpers in this), I guess that’s encouraging. But, Jesus on a phone poll, can’t this nation unify under something stronger than … “ineffective”?
Moreover, I hope we can all agree, the only thing that could have been worse about the last three years is if we had gone through it with an “effective” Trump in office. Now THAT is a terrifying proposition. So, it’s kinda’ weird to be arguing that the problem is that the moron is “ineffective,” when I thank the great dog above that Trump was genius-like in finding new ways to be ineffective.
I am not going to argue with the data, or the people who scientifically studied it, if that’s what the most people want to hear, then I suspect we need use it. It did move the needle more than any other choice, and that is the entire purpose of the exercise, “win.”
But, it sure speaks to just how far this nation has to go, even if/when Trump is deposed. If we cannot unify under something stronger, cannot unify more on the criminality, the vile race-baiting, the dangerousness of the xenophobia, then our work in some semblance of “unity” has a long way to go.
I am going to take my stab at branding right now, one that I think encompasses everything with a bit more strength, cuts a bit deeper, embarrasses appropriately, and a bit more lasting while just as universal.
“At its root, he’s just a slob.”
Test that, jackasses.
****
Peace, y’all.
Jason
Incompetent corruption and racism
He’s rotten to core. I enjoyed reading the book “The Making of Donald Trump” by David Cay Johnston. I learned a lot of things I didn’t know about him going way back. Before he was in office I didn’t give him a second thought. It should be required reading for his supporters – not that it would really make a difference…
I understand your point, and agree with it. But I would put out there that a select number, perhaps minimally small, amount of his “voters” (as opposed to ‘true believers’) a small number of his voters could be moved, IF:
They were asked ahead of time, could you trust writer, and this publication to present a fair, factual story?
If they agree, if given enough samples of responsible conclusions reached in other stories, then there are some out there that don’t know the true story.
I am lucky, I just happened upon a 1991 Vanity Fair article on him, and it pretty well set out all the man’s sins, right there to see, unchanging. He was a democrat at the time and when I was done reading it my conclusion was “What a friggin asshole” and nothing has changed. Literally nothing, and he’s admitted that, once quoted that he’s really never learned anything about human nature since grade school, that he knew all he needed to know, nothing important left to teach about basic human nature. Breathtaking, actually.
Not that any of them read?…
Do remember, folks, that it’s still early doors. The problem with having so many angles of attack like Trump provides is similar to having none…you’re not quite sure what the most effective approach is. And scattershot is NOT our friend in that department. So I expect that there will be lots of road-testing to see what ultimately works before the year is done.
I’m hoping someone goes with “Loser Trump” as that would probably be what he hates most. And clearly 35% of America is just fine with him being incompetent, ineffective, uneducated, uninformed and proud of it, venal, predatory, mean, rude, classless and dishonest. WHAT HAVE WE BECOME under Republican Moscow Mitch rule?!??!
I try and use Dimwit Donny, because he is stupid, along with the mindless cunning.