Here is what he wrote, which appears to refute what you have written here:
Democrats, during their hair-shirt rituals, gaze into their souls and find “bad messaging.” There is talk of a poor “ground game,” an élite failure to “connect.” But the Harris campaign set records or near-records for fund-raising, volunteer enrollment, and in some districts voter registration; it is hard to imagine what a better ground game or a closer connection might have looked like in three months. And the messaging, which hewed to the middle-class experiences of Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz, neither of whom is Ivy-educated or grew up rich, was hardly misguided in a race that ostensibly came down to the economic and exclusion anxieties of working people. Yet Democrats did make a crucial messaging error, one that probably (as the line goes) lost them the election. They misjudged today’s flow of knowledge—what one might call the ambience of information.
Simon, I agree with your sentiment. Heller’s assessment actually speaks further to the distrust I still have in the authenticity of this past election. Yes I know, what’s done is done and unless further intel comes to light or makes its way to the national airways even past the increasingly palpable independent media (like that of the unfolding story around Rockland County), we have to face what is coming at us and not fester in what we cannot control.
But to Heller’s point, Harris’ unprecedented coalition built, the unfathomable fundraising, the impeccable operation, and the over packed arenas…all remains indicative in my view of one, both the math and optics of election night truly didn’t add up, and two, the fact that Harris was NEVER the issue regardless of how she became the nominee. She WAS and still IS a winnable candidate.
At face value, especially given that neither candidate received 50 percent of the vote, the country was in fact more ready for someone like her than perceived. However, if the election was free and fair, then the truth is, Harris didn’t let us down. We the people let her and our nation down. Both sides of voters (certainly factions of both sides at least), disengaged themselves, allowed themselves to be susceptible to the shape shifting misinformation/disinformation and topical minutia.
Harris’ messaging as both you and Heller have pointed out, was focused, tangible, above the fray, and on point. However, the party’s messaging around her was not and unfortunately rather ineffective against the 24/7 presence and coverage of Trump’s building narrative which mainstream media refused to overcome in such a critical period.
Had the meat and potatoes messaging, necessary aggression, and counteroffensive that is thankfully taking shape right now from sharp Democratic figures and social retail politicians like Jamie Raskin, AOC, Chris Murphy, those whose campaigns the Hopium community are directly supporting ahead of the midterms, Newsome, Hochul, Pritzker, Shapiro, Moore, Beshear, Whitmer, Slotkin, Crockett, Obama even, and of course Pete…all been as present during the campaign cycle and further funneled/channeled through Harris as a vessel….i feel the voter turnout would have exceeded far beyond what we experienced and there’d have been little to no doubt on the heels of her winning.
Hindsight is 20/20 right, wrong, or indifferent as to how we got here. Harris did the best she could and while she had an uphill battle from the beginning, her team and our team, Lincoln Project’ team, etc. all worked to the bone. Unfortunately, it was ultimately the people (if taking it all at face value mind you) who came up short. The divide and societal damages unfortunately was already done.
Do I think this cause and effect now experiencing Trump in all his ugliness was what our nation ultimately deserved in light of society’s complacency in order to ‘learn a lesson?’ No, of course not! Even a number of Trump voters are good people, misguided though we here feel they’ve been. Trump voters and Trump supporters however, are two different sectors of people. The voters are the sway able ones (at least a handful of them) and fortunately, our reliable polling with independents right now is significantly to our advantage.
There is an argument to be made that perhaps ‘his people’ so to speak needed to truly see/feel Trump for who he is. Idk how far I want to go down such a vindictive road as it’s counterproductive and more so for outside personal conversation.
That said, like Heller, yourself, and Reich have all pointed out in different ways….Trump may have been the effect of ‘establishment cause’ in the past to some degree, but the cause of Trump now, in my view, will inevitably produce an effect which like Reich stressed, would ultimately be a secondary version or variation of a new progressive era away from this modern guilded age we’re living through (hopefully in a much shorter time span for both our nation’s and society’s health and longevity).
The current landscape has shifted the game plan and messaging necessary, and to a degree neither party truly could have anticipated even ten years ago, which is an overarching point Heller made and rightly so. I believe and see just as many of us here, the Democratic Party and really, the people, are catching onto that necessity, are shifting strategies, are fighting fire with fire, and it is NOT too late!!! That’s why we have you ✌️💕.
Thank you Richard. While I agree with your overall take about the complicity of certain commentators I do not think Nathan is among them, or I would not have brought him to you.
I completely agree about the importance of a rallying cry! I've argued for the very same thing from a different perspective, and have a suggestion for what that might be. A short version of the rationale for my proposal -- and the message itself -- was published here: https://grassrootsconnector.substack.com/p/great-again-for-who
Nathan Heller began contributing to The New Yorker in 2011 and joined the magazine as a staff writer in 2013. He writes often about the Bay Area, technology, higher education, and contemporary socioeconomics; his subjects have also included politics, true crime, and film. His work has been anthologized in the Best American series and elsewhere, and he has been an on-air essayist for the “PBS NewsHour.” Heller is also a contributing editor at Vogue, for which he has written a number of cover profiles. Before coming to The New Yorker, he was a columnist for Slate, where he was a finalist for a National Magazine Award for essays and criticism; he also wrote for the New York Times Magazine, New York, Rolling Stone, The New Republic, and many other publications. He is at work on a book about the Bay Area.
We need to have a great slogan that communicates to everyone on a logical and emotional level.
Dems state accurate facts but if you aren't familiar with a lot of the facts they are ignored. The ever changing news cycles don't give people the chance to digest what is happening on every issue, and the GOP has a great understanding of this. We need to pay attention to this now, before the miid-terms, and start broadcasting on social media. The GOP uses sound bites with no substance, we can do the opposite by using sound bites with a personal message of how these issues affect people as individuals.
I live in a small town and am excited people who used to be in an action group during #45 are starting it up again with even more people. My suggestion to the group was to start a “coffee klatch” with the Trump supporters, not about politics, but about what we have in common. How do we develop a respect for each other with no expectation of changing their minds?
Your conversation is so important. I am researching my paper I mentioned to you in Santa Fe about America's democratic civil society, and your joint closing remarks were spot on.
Some of MAGA's ambient messaging has a foundation in long-held, deep-rooted stereotypes -- beliefs that have been around for decades and seem ingrained within the American subconscious.
For example, the fear of anything that smacks of communism -- those "radical Democrats," "socialists," etc. -- and more recently "woke liberals." This, despite the fact that communism is not the same as socialism. Despite the fact that socialism can exist within a democracy and within a capitalist society. Witness our European friends. Witness all the social programs that Americans take for granted (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, police/fire services, public libraries, trash pickup, etc. etc.).
Another example: racist views (the belief in white superiority) that go back to the 1800s and that have continued to persist since the Civil War in one form or another.
So I agree with Heller to a certain extent when he says Donald Trump has polluted the well of received wisdom and what passes for common sense in America. At the same time, I think that Trump is amplifying an undercurrent of deeply rooted, unconscious beliefs that have been around for decades, if not centuries.
Therefore, in my opinion, not only do Democrats need to message ambiently, we also have to do it in a way that 1) feels personal as well as universal (as Make America Great Again does), but also 2) turns these deep-rooted, unconscious misconceptions on their head.
What do I mean when I say "turn them on their head"? Left-leaning views are not radical, are not extreme; two-thirds of the American public agree with Democratic Party positions on a long list of issues. Democrats' strength (in theory and sometimes in practice) is that we're on the side of the average person -- not the billionaire, not the mega-corporation. We're for economic well-being, good health, safety, and opportunity for each and every American. The good thing is that those are positions that can resonate at a personal level as well as a broader, societal level. These are the aspirations of most Americans. They are NOT radical. They are NOT extreme. Democrats should lean into them.
One more ingredient that's just as important as what I've outlined above: AUTHENTICITY. Whatever our message and however ambiently we communicate it, it must be communicated with authenticity. Some Democratic elected officials and candidates come across as authentic. Others do not. I think the ones who are have a better chance at being elected.
Interesting. Ambient.....(love analogies -- releasing the minnows...) It's so hard to include Authenticity..... Trump's ambient messaging is almost all lies..... I know we don't want to lie -- but those who have been lied to.... Authenticity.... good food for thought. I'm still a bit confused by it all..... One sign of hope is seeing people like Sen Elizabeth Warren & her use of social media -- another is Bernie Sanders & Liz Oyer & Cory Booker & Heather Cox Richardson -- but maybe I only see them because the algorithm 'feeds' them to me...... (and not to those who watch Fox) Hard to compete with lies, lies, lies, lies........ T et al say what people WANT to hear -- so always on the back foot.... hmmmmm
I think everything you say is true, but the good thing is that we don't have to convert everyone. So we don't have to convert those who have been strongly influenced by centuries of stereotypes and those who have been more recently heavily influenced by hate-talk radio and/or Fox News. Or those who live in fear all the time.
All we have to do is convert about 20% of the population that has not been paying attention and are still open to other people and still desirous of socialist ideas like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If the electorate shifted by 20% we'd be winning trifectas in purple states like Ohio and winning majorities in most of the red states at both the federal and state level. If Ohio, Texas, and Florida switched to Democrats, Republicans would never win the presidency again.
My experience is that Trumpsters are very outspoken and the first to respond. And the mainstream news is now focused only on what Trump and his followers think. So in many places/forums it seems like everyone is a Trumpster. But they aren't -- just look at all the No Kings demonstrations, everywhere.
Randy, thanks for your thoughts. The main point of Nathan Heller's piece in the New Yorker (and his interview with Simon) is HOW Americans get information and how the GOP has used that so effectively. "People increasingly take in news by incidental encounter—they are “rubbed by the news”—rather than by seeking it out. Trump has maximized his influence over networks that people rub against, and has filled them with information that, true or not, seems all of a coherent piece."
My point was that, in an era where information is acquired by "rubbing," the GOP has an additional advantage because their main messages resonate at a deep, unconscious (subconscious?) level.
Yes, you are right. There are other centuries-old memes that we need our messages to resonate with at a deep level. I'm thinking of lessons from our Christian heritage (but also most other religions) such as Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you; Good Samaritan: help those who have been hurt even if they are strangers/foreigners; rich men can't make it to heaven just like they can't go through the eye of a needle; and something about how lying all the time is really bad (but I can't think of a Bible story about that right now). The values are strong in Americans and Trump acts against them every single day -- we need to be saying that.
Ken Martin just said that Texas Republicans are trying to cheat by stealing 5 Congressional seats. This is really powerful.
Your point about authenticity, among all your excellent points, makes me think of data that podcasters like me love, about how Americans 40 and younger, down into teenagers, prefer YouTube series and podcasts (it's a blurry distinction) to regular TV series. "Authenticity" comes up in these findings, the appeal of feeling that a friend is talking directly to you vs watching a slick professional program.
The New York Times and Washington Post deliberately wrote headlines to amplify the long-held, deep-rooted stereotypes you describe. It was never positive for President Biden or negative for T****. (If you actually read the articles they were more accurate.)
We kept seeing stuff like “Economic Fears Linger Despite Best Economy Ever” and “Trump Punches Back Hard on Biden SOTU Claims.” Which honestly matches what Simon and Nathan Heller discussed in the interview here.
Do you think the rejection of traditional media will result in such headlines being overshadowed by moderate, positive, and truthful messages? Or will reality assert itself and make truthful headlines (which would be more authentic) more profitable?
I see a number of fine ideas for slogans in the comments, particularly well suited for rally signs. I’m not sure that’s what we’re needing here, though. I think we’re looking for short, broad, general themes that can be woven into many different conversations and said many ways, including colloquially. More so there needs to be a very deliberate almost universal dissemination and repetition project.
Did you read the article? For these charges seem inconsistent with what he wrote....
Here is what he wrote, which appears to refute what you have written here:
Democrats, during their hair-shirt rituals, gaze into their souls and find “bad messaging.” There is talk of a poor “ground game,” an élite failure to “connect.” But the Harris campaign set records or near-records for fund-raising, volunteer enrollment, and in some districts voter registration; it is hard to imagine what a better ground game or a closer connection might have looked like in three months. And the messaging, which hewed to the middle-class experiences of Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz, neither of whom is Ivy-educated or grew up rich, was hardly misguided in a race that ostensibly came down to the economic and exclusion anxieties of working people. Yet Democrats did make a crucial messaging error, one that probably (as the line goes) lost them the election. They misjudged today’s flow of knowledge—what one might call the ambience of information.
Simon, I agree with your sentiment. Heller’s assessment actually speaks further to the distrust I still have in the authenticity of this past election. Yes I know, what’s done is done and unless further intel comes to light or makes its way to the national airways even past the increasingly palpable independent media (like that of the unfolding story around Rockland County), we have to face what is coming at us and not fester in what we cannot control.
But to Heller’s point, Harris’ unprecedented coalition built, the unfathomable fundraising, the impeccable operation, and the over packed arenas…all remains indicative in my view of one, both the math and optics of election night truly didn’t add up, and two, the fact that Harris was NEVER the issue regardless of how she became the nominee. She WAS and still IS a winnable candidate.
At face value, especially given that neither candidate received 50 percent of the vote, the country was in fact more ready for someone like her than perceived. However, if the election was free and fair, then the truth is, Harris didn’t let us down. We the people let her and our nation down. Both sides of voters (certainly factions of both sides at least), disengaged themselves, allowed themselves to be susceptible to the shape shifting misinformation/disinformation and topical minutia.
Harris’ messaging as both you and Heller have pointed out, was focused, tangible, above the fray, and on point. However, the party’s messaging around her was not and unfortunately rather ineffective against the 24/7 presence and coverage of Trump’s building narrative which mainstream media refused to overcome in such a critical period.
Had the meat and potatoes messaging, necessary aggression, and counteroffensive that is thankfully taking shape right now from sharp Democratic figures and social retail politicians like Jamie Raskin, AOC, Chris Murphy, those whose campaigns the Hopium community are directly supporting ahead of the midterms, Newsome, Hochul, Pritzker, Shapiro, Moore, Beshear, Whitmer, Slotkin, Crockett, Obama even, and of course Pete…all been as present during the campaign cycle and further funneled/channeled through Harris as a vessel….i feel the voter turnout would have exceeded far beyond what we experienced and there’d have been little to no doubt on the heels of her winning.
Hindsight is 20/20 right, wrong, or indifferent as to how we got here. Harris did the best she could and while she had an uphill battle from the beginning, her team and our team, Lincoln Project’ team, etc. all worked to the bone. Unfortunately, it was ultimately the people (if taking it all at face value mind you) who came up short. The divide and societal damages unfortunately was already done.
Do I think this cause and effect now experiencing Trump in all his ugliness was what our nation ultimately deserved in light of society’s complacency in order to ‘learn a lesson?’ No, of course not! Even a number of Trump voters are good people, misguided though we here feel they’ve been. Trump voters and Trump supporters however, are two different sectors of people. The voters are the sway able ones (at least a handful of them) and fortunately, our reliable polling with independents right now is significantly to our advantage.
There is an argument to be made that perhaps ‘his people’ so to speak needed to truly see/feel Trump for who he is. Idk how far I want to go down such a vindictive road as it’s counterproductive and more so for outside personal conversation.
That said, like Heller, yourself, and Reich have all pointed out in different ways….Trump may have been the effect of ‘establishment cause’ in the past to some degree, but the cause of Trump now, in my view, will inevitably produce an effect which like Reich stressed, would ultimately be a secondary version or variation of a new progressive era away from this modern guilded age we’re living through (hopefully in a much shorter time span for both our nation’s and society’s health and longevity).
The current landscape has shifted the game plan and messaging necessary, and to a degree neither party truly could have anticipated even ten years ago, which is an overarching point Heller made and rightly so. I believe and see just as many of us here, the Democratic Party and really, the people, are catching onto that necessity, are shifting strategies, are fighting fire with fire, and it is NOT too late!!! That’s why we have you ✌️💕.
Yes and that’s my take.
Well it's obviously wrong and you should take your post down.
Deleted.
Thank you Richard. While I agree with your overall take about the complicity of certain commentators I do not think Nathan is among them, or I would not have brought him to you.
I completely agree about the importance of a rallying cry! I've argued for the very same thing from a different perspective, and have a suggestion for what that might be. A short version of the rationale for my proposal -- and the message itself -- was published here: https://grassrootsconnector.substack.com/p/great-again-for-who
I'd be happy to discuss this in more detail.
I agree, a rallying cry. Take Back Democracy.
My rallying cry: Liberty and Justice for All.
That one is mine too.
Stick with No Kings
TAX THE RICH!
TAX THE RICH!
TAX THE RICH!
https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/nathan-heller
Nathan Heller began contributing to The New Yorker in 2011 and joined the magazine as a staff writer in 2013. He writes often about the Bay Area, technology, higher education, and contemporary socioeconomics; his subjects have also included politics, true crime, and film. His work has been anthologized in the Best American series and elsewhere, and he has been an on-air essayist for the “PBS NewsHour.” Heller is also a contributing editor at Vogue, for which he has written a number of cover profiles. Before coming to The New Yorker, he was a columnist for Slate, where he was a finalist for a National Magazine Award for essays and criticism; he also wrote for the New York Times Magazine, New York, Rolling Stone, The New Republic, and many other publications. He is at work on a book about the Bay Area.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/republican-victory-and-the-ambience-of-information
Thank you for posting this gift link to the article!
Thank you for a good discussion.
We need to have a great slogan that communicates to everyone on a logical and emotional level.
Dems state accurate facts but if you aren't familiar with a lot of the facts they are ignored. The ever changing news cycles don't give people the chance to digest what is happening on every issue, and the GOP has a great understanding of this. We need to pay attention to this now, before the miid-terms, and start broadcasting on social media. The GOP uses sound bites with no substance, we can do the opposite by using sound bites with a personal message of how these issues affect people as individuals.
Great conversation. It’s like we are living in a new Dark Age. We have to rise to the challenge.
This was terrific.
The minnows are ‘propaganda’ — the propagation of waves of lies.
We need to propagate truths, proactively.
Banish maga, not democracy
That TACO is stale, cracked & burnt
No US GESTAPO
It takes a perv to support a perv
He's still Putin’s Puppet
The Cheeto’s so weak he’s gotta cheat
I live in a small town and am excited people who used to be in an action group during #45 are starting it up again with even more people. My suggestion to the group was to start a “coffee klatch” with the Trump supporters, not about politics, but about what we have in common. How do we develop a respect for each other with no expectation of changing their minds?
Your conversation is so important. I am researching my paper I mentioned to you in Santa Fe about America's democratic civil society, and your joint closing remarks were spot on.
Julie
Some of MAGA's ambient messaging has a foundation in long-held, deep-rooted stereotypes -- beliefs that have been around for decades and seem ingrained within the American subconscious.
For example, the fear of anything that smacks of communism -- those "radical Democrats," "socialists," etc. -- and more recently "woke liberals." This, despite the fact that communism is not the same as socialism. Despite the fact that socialism can exist within a democracy and within a capitalist society. Witness our European friends. Witness all the social programs that Americans take for granted (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, police/fire services, public libraries, trash pickup, etc. etc.).
Another example: racist views (the belief in white superiority) that go back to the 1800s and that have continued to persist since the Civil War in one form or another.
So I agree with Heller to a certain extent when he says Donald Trump has polluted the well of received wisdom and what passes for common sense in America. At the same time, I think that Trump is amplifying an undercurrent of deeply rooted, unconscious beliefs that have been around for decades, if not centuries.
Therefore, in my opinion, not only do Democrats need to message ambiently, we also have to do it in a way that 1) feels personal as well as universal (as Make America Great Again does), but also 2) turns these deep-rooted, unconscious misconceptions on their head.
What do I mean when I say "turn them on their head"? Left-leaning views are not radical, are not extreme; two-thirds of the American public agree with Democratic Party positions on a long list of issues. Democrats' strength (in theory and sometimes in practice) is that we're on the side of the average person -- not the billionaire, not the mega-corporation. We're for economic well-being, good health, safety, and opportunity for each and every American. The good thing is that those are positions that can resonate at a personal level as well as a broader, societal level. These are the aspirations of most Americans. They are NOT radical. They are NOT extreme. Democrats should lean into them.
One more ingredient that's just as important as what I've outlined above: AUTHENTICITY. Whatever our message and however ambiently we communicate it, it must be communicated with authenticity. Some Democratic elected officials and candidates come across as authentic. Others do not. I think the ones who are have a better chance at being elected.
Excellent points, Carolyn.
Interesting. Ambient.....(love analogies -- releasing the minnows...) It's so hard to include Authenticity..... Trump's ambient messaging is almost all lies..... I know we don't want to lie -- but those who have been lied to.... Authenticity.... good food for thought. I'm still a bit confused by it all..... One sign of hope is seeing people like Sen Elizabeth Warren & her use of social media -- another is Bernie Sanders & Liz Oyer & Cory Booker & Heather Cox Richardson -- but maybe I only see them because the algorithm 'feeds' them to me...... (and not to those who watch Fox) Hard to compete with lies, lies, lies, lies........ T et al say what people WANT to hear -- so always on the back foot.... hmmmmm
I just read this piece, written by a former Democratic Party staffer. I think it's very relevant to our discussion. https://quartzevelyn.substack.com/p/shame-on-the-liberals-they-let-this
I think everything you say is true, but the good thing is that we don't have to convert everyone. So we don't have to convert those who have been strongly influenced by centuries of stereotypes and those who have been more recently heavily influenced by hate-talk radio and/or Fox News. Or those who live in fear all the time.
All we have to do is convert about 20% of the population that has not been paying attention and are still open to other people and still desirous of socialist ideas like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If the electorate shifted by 20% we'd be winning trifectas in purple states like Ohio and winning majorities in most of the red states at both the federal and state level. If Ohio, Texas, and Florida switched to Democrats, Republicans would never win the presidency again.
My experience is that Trumpsters are very outspoken and the first to respond. And the mainstream news is now focused only on what Trump and his followers think. So in many places/forums it seems like everyone is a Trumpster. But they aren't -- just look at all the No Kings demonstrations, everywhere.
Randy, thanks for your thoughts. The main point of Nathan Heller's piece in the New Yorker (and his interview with Simon) is HOW Americans get information and how the GOP has used that so effectively. "People increasingly take in news by incidental encounter—they are “rubbed by the news”—rather than by seeking it out. Trump has maximized his influence over networks that people rub against, and has filled them with information that, true or not, seems all of a coherent piece."
My point was that, in an era where information is acquired by "rubbing," the GOP has an additional advantage because their main messages resonate at a deep, unconscious (subconscious?) level.
Yes, you are right. There are other centuries-old memes that we need our messages to resonate with at a deep level. I'm thinking of lessons from our Christian heritage (but also most other religions) such as Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you; Good Samaritan: help those who have been hurt even if they are strangers/foreigners; rich men can't make it to heaven just like they can't go through the eye of a needle; and something about how lying all the time is really bad (but I can't think of a Bible story about that right now). The values are strong in Americans and Trump acts against them every single day -- we need to be saying that.
Ken Martin just said that Texas Republicans are trying to cheat by stealing 5 Congressional seats. This is really powerful.
Your point about authenticity, among all your excellent points, makes me think of data that podcasters like me love, about how Americans 40 and younger, down into teenagers, prefer YouTube series and podcasts (it's a blurry distinction) to regular TV series. "Authenticity" comes up in these findings, the appeal of feeling that a friend is talking directly to you vs watching a slick professional program.
The New York Times and Washington Post deliberately wrote headlines to amplify the long-held, deep-rooted stereotypes you describe. It was never positive for President Biden or negative for T****. (If you actually read the articles they were more accurate.)
We kept seeing stuff like “Economic Fears Linger Despite Best Economy Ever” and “Trump Punches Back Hard on Biden SOTU Claims.” Which honestly matches what Simon and Nathan Heller discussed in the interview here.
Do you think the rejection of traditional media will result in such headlines being overshadowed by moderate, positive, and truthful messages? Or will reality assert itself and make truthful headlines (which would be more authentic) more profitable?
I see a number of fine ideas for slogans in the comments, particularly well suited for rally signs. I’m not sure that’s what we’re needing here, though. I think we’re looking for short, broad, general themes that can be woven into many different conversations and said many ways, including colloquially. More so there needs to be a very deliberate almost universal dissemination and repetition project.
An example related to DJT and the gang is Tim Walz’s “weird” tag