Dems are terrible at messaging

[Cinnabar]

The policies in the Build Back Better bill will raise up the average American so why is that point not being driven home 24/7?

A percentage of people believe that investing in them will not help them? WTF??? Pelosi is blaming the press for not getting the word out?

[Grokmaster]

BUT MANY CAN SUCK A MEAN DICK!!!

[Sailor]

The policies in the Build Back Better bill will raise up the average American so why is that point not being driven home 24/7?

A percentage of people believe that investing in them will not help them? WTF??? Pelosi is blaming the press for not getting the word out?

Because working democrat families who pay taxes even see through this bullshit. This is not rocket science.

[Cinnabar]

Joe Biden’s Build Back Better bill is about freedom. Why doesn’t he say so?

Politics is not just talk, but no major political project can do without someone crafting persuasive language. Democrats have done a singularly bad job at making the case for what is still only known as “the $3.5tn bill”. They have advanced neither symbols nor even comprehensible concepts for what this supposed monster piece of legislation is really about. As a consequence, it has become all too easy to discredit the bill as an incoherent progressive wishlist from which items can be arbitrarily subtracted. What’s worse, the right has been able to portray the bill as inherently un-American, since it supposedly erects a – God forbid – European-style “cradle-to-grave” nanny state. It might sound counterintuitive, but the Democrats should ground their plans in the very value conservatives love to claim for themselves: freedom.

Plenty of empirical comparisons with Europe are cherry-picked and ignore the fact that so many Americans lead more stressful and significantly shorter lives in a society that has for decades failed to invest not just in roads and bridges, but also in a civic infrastructure of shared goods such as affordable care for dependants. So many parts of the Build Back Better agenda actually aim to create more options for working people: they would have a choice about how they rear their children and take care of elderly relatives, with obvious implications for their ability to enter the labor market; they would also have more resources to use as they see fit, if drug prices came down. To describe such measures as antithetical to freedom has things exactly the wrong way around; rather than the state dictating to citizens what they have to do, it generates more choices for them.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ciliation-bill

[cawacko]

Joe Biden’s Build Back Better bill is about freedom. Why doesn’t he say so?

Politics is not just talk, but no major political project can do without someone crafting persuasive language. Democrats have done a singularly bad job at making the case for what is still only known as “the $3.5tn bill”. They have advanced neither symbols nor even comprehensible concepts for what this supposed monster piece of legislation is really about. As a consequence, it has become all too easy to discredit the bill as an incoherent progressive wishlist from which items can be arbitrarily subtracted. What’s worse, the right has been able to portray the bill as inherently un-American, since it supposedly erects a – God forbid – European-style “cradle-to-grave” nanny state. It might sound counterintuitive, but the Democrats should ground their plans in the very value conservatives love to claim for themselves: freedom.

Plenty of empirical comparisons with Europe are cherry-picked and ignore the fact that so many Americans lead more stressful and significantly shorter lives in a society that has for decades failed to invest not just in roads and bridges, but also in a civic infrastructure of shared goods such as affordable care for dependants. So many parts of the Build Back Better agenda actually aim to create more options for working people: they would have a choice about how they rear their children and take care of elderly relatives, with obvious implications for their ability to enter the labor market; they would also have more resources to use as they see fit, if drug prices came down. To describe such measures as antithetical to freedom has things exactly the wrong way around; rather than the state dictating to citizens what they have to do, it generates more choices for them.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ciliation-bill

They're messaging is we can spend $3.5 trillion dollars and it won't cost you anything (because we'll tax the rich). Clearly there are people that buy that but anyone familiar with the phrase "there's no such thing as a free lunch" should have questions.

The European countries that have large welfare systems also tax their working and middle class far more than we do. We try to claim we can have it all and only rich people will pay.

[archives]

The policies in the Build Back Better bill will raise up the average American so why is that point not being driven home 24/7?

A percentage of people believe that investing in them will not help them? WTF??? Pelosi is blaming the press for not getting the word out?

Always have had a problem with messaging, overcomplicate the obvious attempting to appease all the party interests

The difficulty is that it is too big, spread in too many directions, and it is tough in today's world to expect people to comprehend a complex piece of legislation even if it is in their best interest

Ought to focus on one or two items, include the rest as worked out, but center messaging on just a few to sell the package

[archives]

They're messaging is we can spend $3.5 trillion dollars and it won't cost you anything (because we'll tax the rich). Clearly there are people that buy that but anyone familiar with the phrase "there's no such thing as a free lunch" should have questions.

The European countries that have large welfare systems also tax their working and middle class far more than we do. We try to claim we can have it all and only rich people will pay.

Taxing rich and corporations will go a long way in paying for it, and how is that any different than the right telling us that tax cuts are paid by projected increased revenues

[cawacko]

Taxing rich and corporations will go a long way in paying for it, and how is that any different than the right telling us that tax cuts are paid by projected increased revenues

You won't come close to paying $3.5 trillion by increasing taxes on the rich. Go back to the Dems debates '20. I think it was Warren who sort of said people in the middle are going to have to pay more to get universal healthcare and people like Bernie and others tore her apart for it. The messaging is 'tell people we'll provide all these services and they won't have to pay'. Warren was attempting to be somewhat honest I guess but it didn't fly.

You hear many progressives say we should have a more European style welfare system. The fact is in those countries the working and middle class pay more in taxes than ours do here.

The OP claims the Dems have a messaging problem. Not sure what the OP's problem with the Dems claiming we can spend $3.5 trillion and not have it cost you anything is.

[archives]

You won't come close to paying $3.5 trillion by increasing taxes on the rich. Go back to the Dems debates '20. I think it was Warren who sort of said people in the middle are going to have to pay more to get universal healthcare and people like Bernie and others tore her apart for it. The messaging is 'tell people we'll provide all these services and they won't have to pay'. Warren was attempting to be somewhat honest I guess but it didn't fly.

You hear many progressives say we should have a more European style welfare system. The fact is in those countries the working and middle class pay more in taxes than ours do here.

The OP claims the Dems have a messaging problem. Not sure what the OP's problem with the Dems claiming we can spend $3.5 trillion and not have it cost you anything is.

Didn't say taxing the upper percent and raising corporate tax would pay for it all, even Biden himself said those making more than $400,000 will see a tax increase

Of course the European nations tax their working and middle class more, not news, as they do their rich, however, everyone receives more services, there is a reason most European nations have a better standard of living than we enjoy

And as I said, the cost isn't the problem with the messaging, rather that the bill is too encompassing plus complex, and the Democrats are trying to sell it all rather than focusing on a few items everyone can understand and support

[cawacko]

Didn't say taxing the upper percent and raising corporate tax would pay for it all, even Biden himself said those making more than $400,000 will see a tax increase

Of course the European nations tax their working and middle class more, not news, as they do their rich, however, everyone receives more services, there is a reason most European nations have a better standard of living than we enjoy

And as I said, the cost isn't the problem with the messaging, rather that the bill is too encompassing plus complex, and the Democrats are trying to sell it all rather than focusing on a few items everyone can understand and support

Leaving aside the very debatable comment about Europeans having a higher standard of living what gets left out in your statement is many/most of those countries rely on the U.S. for their defense. Let them protect themselves, and spend the money needed to do so, and let's see how well they can continue with their generous welfare benefits.

Edit: I will agree that the more clear and concise you can make things it's an easier sell to voters (very similar concepts in the business world as well).

[Sailor]

Leaving aside the very debatable comment about Europeans having a higher standard of living what gets left out in your statement is many/most of those countries rely on the U.S. for their defense. Let them protect themselves, and spend the money needed to do so, and let's see how well they can continue with their generous welfare benefits.

Outstanding. Not to mention all the other aid we give to those countries.

[archives]

Leaving aside the very debatable comment about Europeans having a higher standard of living what gets left out in your statement is many/most of those countries rely on the U.S. for their defense. Let them protect themselves, and spend the money needed to do so, and let's see how well they can continue with their generous welfare benefits.

Edit: I will agree that the more clear and concise you can make things it's an easier sell to voters (very similar concepts in the business world as well).

"The ten countries with the highest quality of life are:"
Denmark
Switzerland
Finland
Australia
Netherlands
Austria
Iceland
New Zealand
Germany
Estonia

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ing-by-country
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-cou...-life-rankings
https://worldinfigures.com/rankings/topic/9
https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-li...by_country.jsp
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-a7376846.html

That's in terms of NATO, not their individual defense, where they comfortable on what they spend

[cawacko]

"The ten countries with the highest quality of life are:"
Denmark
Switzerland
Finland
Australia
Netherlands
Austria
Iceland
New Zealand
Germany
Estonia

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ing-by-country
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-cou...-life-rankings
https://worldinfigures.com/rankings/topic/9
https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-li...by_country.jsp
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-a7376846.html

That's in terms of NATO, not their individual defense, where they comfortable on what they spend

So happiness is being a small largely white homogeneous country that relies on the U.S. for defense.

Is that what we should aim for?

[archives]

So happiness is being a small largely white homogeneous country that relies on the U.S. for defense.

Is that what we should aim for?

Now there's a transition, from willing to pay higher tax rates for more services to attain a higher standard of living to "happiness is being a small largely white homogeneous country"

Again, you are reacting to NATO funding, they do have their own defense budgets, and last I knew, it is up to each nation to determine it’s own defense requirements as they define those needs, plus those nations don't have the arms lobby we do to satisfy

[Micawber]

The messaging is calibrated for intelligent people. You can't dumb down intelligent policy
for redneck morons anymore than you can teach TDAK to read Latin.