Trump to Congresswomen: Go back to your own country!

[_canpakes]

Honor, this would attempt to counter the tactic but cannot affect how often Trump and Co. will still jump up and down, screaming “Socialism!!1!” every time they see or refer to a Democratic candidate.

I’m wondering if reasonable Independents and casual Democratic voters would be swayed by Trump’s labeling to begin with. And, if Trump’s fake labeling can affect these voters, then how strongly do claims of Democratic legislation activity counteract that? Folks who are prone to let unsubstantiated fear be the strongest driver of their voting response may not be swayed by anything eliciting a tamer response.

[_honorentheos]

Thus calling it out as the tactical move to reframe Democrats.

If a majority of Americans are distrustful of socialism AND are persuaded to view Democrats as socialists, then it will have proved successful.

If Democrats can frame the narrative as they prefer, then it won't be. But if you are against Trump and for the Democrats, it's in your interest to acknowledge the tactic and refute it vocally and publicly.

[_EAllusion]

Go back two weeks ago and review what Democrats were doing then. Review what the messaging was immediately after the tweets.

Democrat leadership is trying to focus on key issues and effective legislating. The dust up with the Squad was resistance to party discipline but the lesson being given was tweets and media saturation don't mean ____ if someone doesn't command enough votes to matter, and people need to get things done that can show Congress is working. It was a good direction and they are moving back to it. The debt ceiling negotiations will be interesting tells as to how this last week affected things and attitudes. We will see I guess.

Congress isn't working. Nothing of note they pass is getting through the Senate, nor would it be expected to. Only a few laws have been signed this year and major bills are in stay-the-course mode. The bloc of moderate Democrats that are a small minority of the Democratic caucus are the party blocking all the symbolic legislation and actions the majority wants to take. If the concern was simply removing roadblocks to "effective legislating" you'd think the heat would be on them for not getting with the program. But it's not.

The story about progressives kneecapping Congress's ability to focus on legislation is about moderate Democrats fighting a proxy war through the media to control the caucus agenda by having the ability to veto a more liberal direction. They got an in to do this when a few progressive members of Congress broke off and their media people got strident in criticizing Pelosi for pushing a large amount of funding for border enforcement without safeguards to adequately prevent it from being used to fund noxious actions by the Trump admin.

[_EAllusion]

Thus calling it out as the tactical move to reframe Democrats.

If a majority of Americans are distrustful of socialism AND are persuaded to view Democrats as socialists, then it will have proved successful.

If Democrats can frame the narrative as they prefer, then it won't be. But if you are against Trump and for the Democrats, it's in your interest to acknowledge the tactic and refute it vocally and publicly.

Bernie Sanders was one of the most popular politicians in America not that long ago. I think you are overestimating the depth of American antipathy towards socialists at this point. It has favorability ratings in the 40's. The majority of people who aren't old favor socialism, probably in part because they spent their whole lives being told by Republicans that politicians they like are socialists.

Would being too far to the left hurt Democratic prospects for taking the presidency? Maybe a little. 1-3 points? That could matter, but it's not exactly a propaganda coup even if you successfully paint Democrats as all socialists. And if you do, that's probably a major overton window victory for Democrats because ordinary liberal positions start to seem moderate by comparison to the extent they can be called "not-socialism".

[_honorentheos]

Last gallop, 43% viewed socialism as potentially good, 51% as bad.

That's a majority against last time I checked. It's moving for sure, but May 2019 isn't exactly back in your grandma's era.

Now add that to a good economy and Trump telling people they are throwing it out the window to pay for socialism and you have a different argument being made.

It shouldn't be such a difficult thing to acknowledge it for what it is attempting to do and say it's wrong. Because it is.

[_EAllusion]

Last gallop, 43% viewed socialism as potentially good, 51% as bad.

That's a majority against last time I checked. It's moving for sure, but May 2019 isn't exactly back in your grandma's era

That sounds like the 40's to me. And if you peak under the hood of those numbers, it means that socialism is polling positively among people who aren't old. I think the last poll I saw on this showed that a majority of women preferred socialism to capitalism. Socialism as a label is rapidly shedding its negative connotation. For haters of socialism, the good news is that when you ask people what socialism is, the term is increasingly equated with a wide range liberal policies. That's probably the result of the combined effects of prominent new deal liberals like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calling themselves socialists and Republicans calling everything socialism.

Republicans win elections routinely with positions that poll much, much lower than this. So you have a situation where a rhetorical attempt to equate the Democratic party with socialism might move public perception of it somewhat more toward a socialist direction. Maybe. Socialism itself is somewhat unpopular, though that popularity is partially tied into how much people like politicians who are thought of as socialists. How much does this actually cost Democrats? Probably a lot less than you seem to think.

Meanwhile, the public seems to really dislike the President being a racist jackass. Trump's biggest fans love that he avoids dog-whistling racism and just comes out and says it. But the reason politicians use dog-whistles is because coming out and just saying it is not popular. Trump draws people with high amounts of racial animus towards him by doing this, but because that's a minority of voters, it's not necessarily good strategy.

[_honorentheos]

And 40 is less than 50.

When you can pick you opponent, you do it.

Trump is who he is. Putting him up against an opponent he has a better shot as beating is not exactly rocket science. It's not new. It's not being pro-Trump to acknowledge it.

People can be silly.

[_Res Ipsa]

Thus calling it out as the tactical move to reframe Democrats.

If a majority of Americans are distrustful of socialism AND are persuaded to view Democrats as socialists, then it will have proved successful.

If Democrats can frame the narrative as they prefer, then it won't be. But if you are against Trump and for the Democrats, it's in your interest to acknowledge the tactic and refute it vocally and publicly.

"Calling it out" means placing emphasis on whether the Democrats are Socialists or not. In other words, it keeps Trump's framing alive -- treating it as an important enough topic to spend time on. Calling out the tactic reinforces the frame by treating it as important.

Although the public doesn't approve of the label "socialism" by a slim majority, it does approve of certain policies identified with socialism. So what should the Democrats do? They should talk about their policies, not about the label.

The best response to a detrimental framing is not to talk about the framing -- it's to push your own frame. And that's what it looks like the Democrats are doing.

[_EAllusion]

And 40 is less than 50.

When you can pick you opponent, you do it.

Trump is who he is. Putting him up against an opponent he has a better shot as beating is not exactly rocket science. It's not new. It's not being pro-Trump to acknowledge it.

People can be silly.

It’s not Trump vs. the concept of socialism. It’s Trump vs. the nominee of a party that maybe was slightly more associated with socialists than before at the cost of Trump doing very unpopular things.

[_Res Ipsa]

And 40 is less than 50.

When you can pick you opponent, you do it.

Trump is who he is. Putting him up against an opponent he has a better shot as beating is not exactly rocket science. It's not new. It's not being pro-Trump to acknowledge it.

People can be silly.

The only thing I see in this conversation that is silly is the notion that "calling out" Trump's framing will somehow magically cause folks in the center to say: "Oh, yeah. That's just another one of Trump's tactical lies. Yeah, I'm voting for a Democrat."

The best response to a bad frame is to ignore it and emphasize your own frame, and that's what the Democrats appear to be doing.