Originally Posted By RoadTrip As an example... which of the benefits I mentioned were mentioned in the NY Times (all the news that's fit to print) article? <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/business/10-minimum-wage-proposal-has-obamas-backing.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11...tml?_r=0</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip And believe me... I CARE. Living in an area where a VERY LARGE percentage of the working population earns minimum wage or barely above it, I desperately want the measure to be adopted. And I want effective arguments to be made to help assure that. Ideological victories won't help people around here very much.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <However, fkurucz's message is the one that's getting through. Not yours. Because it's an emotional message rather than a common sense one. Ideally, you want the fkuruczes to shuddup so that the media is forced to go with the *effective* message instead. (No offense, fkurucz.) The Republicans are great at this.> I sort of agree with this. Except that it implies (perhaps inadvertently) that the Republicans are great at common sense messages rather than emotional ones. I can't agree with that - the usual noise machine message IS emotional, and pretty much has to be because they don't have things like basic math on their side. Having said that, I mostly agree with mawnck/RT here, in that the practical arguments - which the Democrats could and should make because they DO have the basic math and other facts on their side - tend to get lost in the other arguments, even if those other arguments are true. Who was the most effective speaker at last year's Democratic Convention? Bill Clinton. Because he went right to the practical, basic math argument. (As several people said, he should have been dubbed "Secretary of Explaining, um, Stuff.") There's room for preaching to the choir. But we're nuts not to include and even emphasize the practical arguments when they ARE on our side, and it's what moderates tend to respond to. (Note that I don't think anyone here is arguing NOT to include them... it's a question of emphasis, and the media is most definitely to blame here - they like fiery and confrontational, and unless the "basic math" arguments are coming from an established star like Clinton, they're likely to get less airtime, with the exception of a few wonkier show hosts and pundits.)
Originally Posted By hopemax > Why don't the Coch brothers and other plutocrats understand that giving workers more pay means more goods and services purchased which means more revenue for their businesses? < Because you can sell goods and services to Chinese, South Korean and eventually Indian people just as well too. And there's a heck of a lot more of them then potentially new customers or better customers here. For the large multi-nationals they don't need American or European customers anymore. We are a "mature" market, their eyes are all on the emerging markets. It's not that we need to be under their heal, it's that we're completely irrelevant in the business plan. Take Disney. Do they care that FP+ will mean that locals stop visiting WDW, because there will be little opportunity to ride an E-ticket ride because the capacity has been pre-distributed? Not a lick, when they are focusing on the South American Tour groups that are eager to come spend their new monies on a trip to the good ol' USA. Globalization first put pressure on wages, as production was moved elsewhere. Now, we're in phase 2, the best "clients" are off-shore as well. They have a lot of new money, and are star-struck with Western food, products, etc.
Originally Posted By ecdc Okay. Well now I just suspect I'm having an argument over semantics. I'm with you on messaging. Truly. And I'm plenty familiar with the role of emotional arguments. We've seen the evidence that facts don't persuade people. But that argument seems to imply if the red meaters go away, the factual arguments get through. Which isn't true, either. It sounds like what you're saying is Democrats need their own emotionally manipulative message to get through to the middle. Which is tricky because we think of the "middle" as some sort of cautious, well-informed group when really they're usually the least informed. (I would distinguish true moderates--well-read, well-informed people who decide issues...moderately--from most people who label themselves "moderate," or "independent," which is just another way of saying they don't really pay attention and they hate both parties so they like to pretend they're just somewhere in the middle.) In other words, I guess I'm having a hard time pinning down what the real solution is. I agree the red meat doesn't convince people. But all evidence and studies show that facts don't either. People choose which facts to believe or reject based on how they conform to their preconceived beliefs. So how should liberals be going about this (sincere inquiry)?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's a tough question. I think there's room for both sorts of messaging. And your point about well-informed people who fall in the middle ideologically vs. those who just don't care much or lazily say "a pox on both your houses" is well taken. The latter are hard to reach with ANY kind of message. The former, though, often do respond to practical, fact-based appeals. And with partisan divide pretty entrenched for now, those 5-10% (that's a guess) of in-the-middle-AND-paying-attention folks can make the difference in a lot of elections.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I guess what I see as appealing about the fact-based approach is not only will it get through to "informed moderates", it just MIGHT influence some of those on the right. They consistently list growing entitlements, deficits, and national debt as among the largest problems this country faces. Now admittedly the increased income tax revenue maybe won't mean much to them... they figure the government already has plenty of revenue, they just squander it. On the other hand, they consistently complain about the large nubmer of people who pay absolutely no income tax, so it might just work if you could show that the percentage of Americans who have to pay SOME income tax would increase.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>what I see as appealing about the fact-based approach is not only will it get through to "informed moderates", it just MIGHT influence some of those on the right<< If it gets published. Sorry to be cynical, but the current media landscape produces pretty much red team or blue team spin. Add to it that people are busier (or at least more distracted) than ever, and there isn't a lot of room for subtlety. Today's media is in permanent split-screen mode. If your "argument" can't be made in brief, bumper-sticker form, it gets buried at best. The irony is that technology today gives us more access than ever to dig and search for the information one needs to make informed decisions about things such as what to do about healthcare in the country, but because people are overwhelmed with an endless stream of media, we gravitate towards the simplistic. And in that environment, it really does come down to who can make the most emotional, reaction-generating argument.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>appealing about the fact-based approach<< See, and now we're getting to where I disagree with you. I'm not saying I don't like facts, or that I think the sort of red meat boilerplating we see here is the right approach. But it's shown over and over again to just not work. People are evolutionarily wired to *reject* facts that don't fit with their current worldview. Our brains like order and neatness--so much so that otherwise intelligent people will embrace ludicrous beliefs over reality because in their brains it makes more sense. See also, 9/11 Truthers and Kennedy conspiracy theorists. You have to appeal to those preconceived beliefs and values. So here's what a study found: They took a group of political conservatives who rejected climate change. Both groups were shown the same set of facts regarding the reality of climate change. But then one group was given a different set of recommendations for how to fix climate change. The first group was given recommendations containing liberal buzzwords - carbon emissions, EPA, renewable energy, etc. The other group was given recommendations containing conservative buzzwords - capitalism, free market, nuclear energy. The group that got the conservative buzzwords overwhelmingly accepted the facts of climate change and believed it was real, while the group that got the liberal buzzwords overwhelmingly rejected the facts of climate change. Not, they disagreed with the recommendations, but they actually said the *facts* they were given were false. People have an emotional response, you have to appeal to them emotionally. Which is next-to-impossible when you're dealing with complex issues. Of course, it's easy to boil things down sometimes, but then, it can come back and bite you in the gluteus assimus. "If you like your plan, you can keep it."
Originally Posted By ecdc I'd add, facts whither in the face of anecdotal stories. Let's take the minimum wage example. We can use all sorts of facts to point out that raising the minimum wage actually helps the overall economy, which in turn helps business. That's a fact. People will completely reject that fact when they hear a story about a friend of a friend whose business was harmed or went under because of a minimum wage hike. And those stories will come out of the woodwork. And some might be true; most will be inaccurate or distortions. We're seeing it now in the insurance enrollment. At a population level, Obamacare is fantastic and helps far, far more people than it hurts. And those that it "hurts" it actually helps by requiring better insurance. But that reality stands no chance when confronted with Facebook posts like, "Just got my insurance canceled. Premiums going up by $90 a month. F U ObamacarE!!!!"
Originally Posted By mawnck >>People are evolutionarily wired to *reject* facts that don't fit with their current worldview.<< This gets at the heart of RT's point, methinks. To pick on fkurucz again, the "Koch Brothers are out to get you" thing, true or not, is a left-wing construct. It *doesn't* fit the typical moderate's worldview, which would be more along the lines of "business is gonna do what's good for business, and that doesn't make them unusually evil". >>We're seeing it now in the insurance enrollment. At a population level, Obamacare is fantastic and helps far, far more people than it hurts. And those that it "hurts" it actually helps by requiring better insurance.<< And see, you've walked right into this one. David Frum was one of the people "flung" onto the exchanges, and he has fully documented the fact that he *is* being forced to pay substantially more for *unquestionably* inferior insurance - because he's healthy and fairly well-off. Now you can say "well who cares about a rich white guy who helped lead us into a stupid war blah blah blah", but he *does* count. He's living proof that the claim you just made is bogus. There's no such thing as a government program that makes things better for *everybody*, and it's silly for Obama and his supporters to pretend otherwise.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 In fairness to ecdc, he did say the ACA would help MORE people than it hurt, which I think is accurate, rather than everybody. Also, in Frum's Daily Beast piece he says his new policy will be (his words): "marginally worse than the one I have now." He obviously did not have a crappy policy, and does not qualify for subsidies. Also, he gets at least one basic fact wrong when he says "the new plan will be issued, no questions asked. Presumably somewhere there is a D.C. resident who smokes or who has some pre-existing condition who will receive a corresponding $200 a month windfall." The insurance companies CAN (and do) ask if you smoke; in fact, some smokers have been complaining that the ACA is harder on them than it ought to be (which is a whole other question, but you get my point).
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I see your point. I guess I look at things differently. I spent 20+ years in database, software and systems design. Computers are dumb. They can only make one of two decisions, yes or no, based on a fact based/rules driven set of criteria. All programs consist of an endless set of yes/no questions consuming millions of lines of code. I this, then that; if not, then this other thing. And on to the next question. I guess that is how I look at most everything. It drives my poor wife nuts. She'll say "I've told you what you need to know... can't you just decide?" I'll say "No, you HAVEN'T told me what I need to know. I need to have all my questions answered to arrive at my decision." You should have seen what my decision to take early retirement involved. Did I just figure that I'd been at the University almost all my life, my job was becoming increasing stressful, I wanted out, and that I knew I had a semi-decent pension coming? Of COURSE not. I spent countless hours preparing a massive spreadsheet that detailed out, month by month my projected income and expense for when I would retire at 57 until I would collect Medicare at 65. It included my pension income, Social Security at 62, an estimate on what I would earn on my my mutual funds, and how much I would have to draw them down each month to support the difference. How did it work out? So far, not too bad. In fact I'm a little ahead of the game becasue given the dismal market performance of the time I just programmed in an estimated 3% annual return. Except for a couple of dismal years it has far exceeded that. Good thing too, because my situation has changed. My late wife died at 57... although we had chosen the retirement benefit where the survivor would continue to receive 75% of the deceased's pension, it was a reduction in income over what I had projected. I also remarried and the survivor option can only be used once, so Ann will receive none of my pension when I die. She is seven years younger than I am so that is a real concern. I decided to convert the term life insurance I had through the University to a whole life policy (which is a guaranteed option when the insurance terminated at the end of COBRA) so she would have something. Doing so at my age was extremely expensive, but I do have Ann's income to help offset that. So I've left my mutual funds earnings at 3% to cover contingencies like that. But so far, the critical item... the balance remaining in my mutual funds at the end of each year has been somewhat higher than projected. Of course expense items are updated as they change. Such is the way I think. ;-)
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And see, you've walked right into this one.<< Not this time. I've read Frum's columns and I'm aware of his situation and those like him. When I said what I did, I was doing so in the context of what we're discussing—dumbing down and appealing to people. I was referring to people who are better off, but the fact-based preaching that I see being advocated for here isn't making a difference. (See the pregnant woman in the L.A. Times story who's actually saving money by having maternity care covered.) RT's original point was this loaded frustration that liberals suck at their messaging because they just spew red meat about the Koch brothers. Sure, we've got examples of that here, but there are also plenty of examples of rational, reasoned arguments to try and point out the benefits of different liberal policies. Those don't really work either. And what especially doesn't work, as you've so helpfully demonstrated, is simplifying claims in an attempt to be clear and accessible because one anecdotal story (David Frum) can be wielded to say, "Nuh uh!" I'm not really advocating much of anything. I think breaking through with a successful message is extremely difficult, especially if it's a nuanced one that requires a longterm outlook (like Obamacare). As I posted original in this thread, Jonathan Chait nailed it: We're now hearing ad nauseam about a tiny minority of middle-class Americans who are losing insurance when for the past ten years we heard jack squat about far more Americans who had no insurance at all, and we hear nothing now about 10 times as many poor Americans who just had their food stamps cut. That's because our media conforms to a set white, middle-class narrative. I'm just nowhere near sold on this idea that somehow if liberals just fact-upped their message moderates and reasonable people would be all over it and everything would be running smoothly. I know it's an established truth that Obama tanked his ACA messaging and the administration just didn't "sell it," but I think that's grade A horse hockey. I have no doubt things could've been done better, but to present this situation as if it's simple and if only the administration had done A, B, and C, all would be well is just to ignore the past twenty years of cable news, Internet blogging, and now Facebook memes. You, of all people, mawnck, are giving Americans waaaay too much credit
Originally Posted By mawnck >>And what especially doesn't work, as you've so helpfully demonstrated, is simplifying claims in an attempt to be clear and accessible because one anecdotal story (David Frum) can be wielded to say, "Nuh uh!"<< It may not work on you, but it works gangbusters on the uninformed. >>I'm just nowhere near sold on this idea that somehow if liberals just fact-upped their message moderates and reasonable people would be all over it and everything would be running smoothly.<< No one's trying to sell you on that message. Only that it would help. >>You, of all people, mawnck, are giving Americans waaaay too much credit<< Not hardly. I'm not giving them any credit at all. In effect, I'm arguing that the Dems should be doing a better job of herding the sheeple.
Originally Posted By ecdc I really do suspect I'm just missing the point, but I can't seem to reconcile this >> Only that it would help.<< with this >>I'm arguing that the Dems should be doing a better job of herding the sheeple.<< Those seem to contradict each other. Either Dems are lousy at emotional marketing or they're lousy at facts. You don't get to have both because emotional marketing is inherently based on oversimplification. Red meat is oversimplification. My point in saying you demonstrated the problem with Frum was that my message was largely correct, but all it takes is one story to throw a wrench into the plan. So then my explanation would have to be, "Well the ACA lowers rates for some people, others might see an increase, while still others will get insurance for the first time and besnooooooooooooooooooooooze." Not a simple message. Facts don't herd the sheeple. In fact, I'd argue Obama's biggest problem is he's too wonkish, too professorial. And when he dumbs it down it gets him into trouble. Maybe someone can lay out for me the way Obama should've sold Obamacare.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Simple. Make sure that what he said happened. Anyone who had existing insurance at the time the ACA policies became available (not when the law was passed) would be grandfathered in. If things go as you are predicting, in a few years people would see the benefit of ACA compliant policies and switch to them voluntarily. Always better to let people decide to do something than force them to do something they don't want.
