Is this why Dem’s Approval Rating Polls are so bad?

[Paine]

Amen to this. Too bad the Dems have been so slow to understand it and counter it, largely because of overestimating the electorate. Most voters are misinformed, uninformed, or barely informed. Time to finally start grappling with that reality.

This is the core of the issue, and it’s exactly why Democrats keep losing ground. If you start from the belief that most voters are ignorant or barely informed, then your whole political strategy becomes about managing perceptions: smoothing the edges, avoiding anything too bold, hoping to trick people into agreeing with you. That’s not a strategy though.

Yes, voters respond to emotion more than policy detail. That’s not new. The answer isn’t to condescend to them; it’s to speak with moral clarity about the things that shape their lives: wages, rent, healthcare, trust. Trump tells a story that feels true to a lot of people. The question is: why aren’t we?

If Democrats want to win, they need to stop treating the electorate like a liability and start treating them like a public that deserves to be inspired, not managed.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

This is the core of the issue, and it’s exactly why Democrats keep losing ground. If you start from the belief that most voters are ignorant or barely informed, then your whole political strategy becomes about managing perceptions: smoothing the edges, avoiding anything too bold, hoping to trick people into agreeing with you. That’s not strategy.

Yes, voters respond to emotion more than policy detail. That’s not new. The answer isn’t to condescend to them; it’s to speak with moral clarity about the things that shape their lives: wages, rent, healthcare, trust. Trump tells a story that feels true to a lot of people. The question is: why aren’t we?

If Democrats want to win, they need to stop treating the electorate like a liability and start treating them like a public that deserves to be inspired, not managed.

No offense, but it sounds like you’re saying inspiration by fantasy and lies is better than condescension by nuance and explanation.
I don’t think that will come naturally enough to most Dems to pull it off.

 

[Duke Mu]

No leadership. Plain and simple (Gawd, I hate that phrase, but it's finally true)

 

[duluoz]

This is the core of the issue, and it’s exactly why Democrats keep losing ground. If you start from the belief that most voters are ignorant or barely informed, then your whole political strategy becomes about managing perceptions: smoothing the edges, avoiding anything too bold, hoping to trick people into agreeing with you. That’s not strategy.

Yes, voters respond to emotion more than policy detail. That’s not new. The answer isn’t to condescend to them; it’s to speak with moral clarity about the things that shape their lives: wages, rent, healthcare, trust. Trump tells a story that feels true to a lot of people. The question is: why aren’t we?

If Democrats want to win, they need to stop treating the electorate like a liability and start treating them like a public that deserves to be inspired, not managed.

So strange how you can continue to defend the electorate and their potential, when the absolutely wild notions of the president (and most or all of his appointed officials) and a majority in Congress make enough sense to people to continue to win their votes, with increasing share.

Perhaps consider it’s time to realize it’s not the same fight anymore, not a fair fight, not the same climate as when your approach might’ve worked — your ideals alone are no match for the kind of propaganda and misinformation and conspiracy nonsense and utter hatred that sadly rules the country and rules the day. And no matter how great the ideals and platform, a shift in messaging and counter-messaging is THE most vital component of strategy.

 

[Paine]

No offense, but it sounds like you’re saying inspiration by fantasy and lies is better than condescension by nuance and explanation.
I don’t think that will come naturally enough to most Dems to pull it off.

Not at all. I’m saying the choice between “fantasy and lies” and “condescension by nuance” is a false one, and it’s exactly the trap Democrats keep falling into.

The goal isn’t to imitate Trump’s lies. It’s to tell the truth in a way that resonates emotionally. That means framing real material issues like wages, healthcare, and rent not as dry policy points but as moral and human struggles. That’s what moves people.

We don’t need Democrats to become con men. We need them to become storytellers with a conscience; people who can speak plainly, fight visibly, and connect the dots between people’s pain and the systems causing it. If we can’t do that, we leave the emotional terrain wide open for someone else to fill with whatever fantasy they want.

If most Democrats can’t tell a compelling, emotionally grounded story about why their ideas matter, that’s not just a messaging issue, it’s a failure of political imagination. It means too many party leaders have lost touch with how people actually live and feel. They’ve become fluent in policy but illiterate in emotion, and in politics, that’s fatal.

The truth doesn’t sell itself. It has to be communicated with moral urgency and human connection. That’s not about dumbing things down, it’s about respecting people enough to meet them where they are through story, struggle, and shared values.

 

[Paine]

So strange how you can continue to defend the electorate and their potential, when the absolutely wild notions of the president (and most or all of his appointed officials) and a majority in Congress make enough sense to people to continue to win their votes, with increasing share.

Perhaps consider it’s time to realize it’s not the same fight anymore, not a fair fight, not the same climate as when your approach might’ve worked — your ideals alone are no match for the kind of propaganda and misinformation and conspiracy nonsense and utter hatred that sadly rules the country and rules the day. And no matter how great the ideals and platform, a shift in messaging and counter-messaging is THE most vital component of strategy.

I don’t disagree that the fight has changed or that the propaganda is powerful. But that’s why I keep saying messaging has to do more than explain policy; it has to move people.

Where we differ is that I don’t think you can message effectively if you start from the assumption that most voters are just too far gone. That’s a trap. It leads to cynicism dressed up as strategy, either watering down ideas until they’re meaningless or treating the electorate like a problem to outmaneuver rather than a public to engage. This is exactly the attitude I’m critiquing from politicians who think they can slightly tweak their branding and come out okay.

You’re right that we can’t treat this like 2008. But the answer isn’t to abandon moral conviction or emotional connection, it’s to learn how to communicate better. The right has weaponized storytelling and grievance. We need to counter with our own story. That’s the only way forward that isn’t pure retreat.

 

[Kingpin]

I am going to weigh in as a Republican, yet non MAGAt and 100% anti-Trump. Even as a Republican, I have always been more centrist or a little left of center on social issues. I was 100% in support of gay marriage from the beginning. I am also 100% for equal rights for trans people.

Take this as you will, I do not care. I'm just sharing some perspective to consider. Here's where the Dems totally fucked up and screwed the pooch.

MAGA made a huge issue out of Trans athletes competing in female sports. Is this a huge relevant issue? Hell no. But Dems didn't just stop there. They totally took the bait. They argued that biologically born males (as Trans) should be able to compete with females.

That is so very wrong on so many levels. First, it is very much like the NRA argument. ANY attempt to put limits on gun controls means you want to take all guns and deny 2nd Ammendment rights. What I mean is, Dems take the stance that anyone against biologically born males, and now Trans, competing in female sports, MUST be transphobic. Bullshit!

Secondly, Dems rightfully point out what a miniscule issue this is and how few actual Trans athletes there are competing in female sports. Completely true. Yet, they take the MAGA bait and protest furiously against banning Trans athletes from women's sports. If you point out how rare it is, and what a meaningless issue it is, why dig in so hard to protect it?

This is the stupidity of the Dem party that has hindered it forever.

I agree. That plus immigration. In Denmark liberals trounced Conservatives because they took a reasonable stand on immigration. They advocated for strict enforcement of the borders and rational control (not an end to) immigration. They won going away, unlike elsewhere in Europe. Dems should take similar stances.

 

[duluoz]

Where we differ is that I don’t think you can message effectively if you start from the assumption that most voters are just too far gone. That’s a trap. It leads to cynicism dressed up as strategy, either watering down ideas until they’re meaningless or treating the electorate like a problem to outmaneuver rather than a public to engage.

Cynicism dressed up as strategy is exactly how a miserable human was able to take over the country.

Don’t try to convince us the electorate is to be respected and not needing condescension to be won over, when his vote share has increased. Just take a look around and then try defending the integrity of the majority of today’s voting public. His team (especially now) knows just how easy it is to manipulate most voters, and they have exploited that to land us here.

Turns out head-in-the-clouds idealism dressed up as strategy is far less effective in this political climate.

 

[SnoopRob]

I am going to weigh in as a Republican, yet non MAGAt and 100% anti-Trump. Even as a Republican, I have always been more centrist or a little left of center on social issues. I was 100% in support of gay marriage from the beginning. I am also 100% for equal rights for trans people.

Take this as you will, I do not care. I'm just sharing some perspective to consider. Hete's where the Dems totally fucked up and screwed the pooch.

MAGA made a huge issue out of Trans athletes competing I'm female sports. Is this a huge relevant issue? Hell no. But Dems didn't just stop there. They totally took the bait. They argued that biologically born males (as Trans) should be able to compete with females.

That is so very wrong on so many levels. First, it is very much.like the NRA argument. ANY attempt to put limits on gun controls means you want to take all guns and deny 2nd Ammendment rights. What I mean is, Dems take the stance that anyone against biologically born males, and now Trans, competing in female sports, MUST be transphobic. Bullshit!

Secondly, Dems rightfully point out what a minuscule issue this is and how few actual Trans athletes there are competing in female sports. Completely true. Yet, they take the MAGA bait and protest furiously against banning Trans athletes from women's sports. If you point out how rare it is, and what a meaningless issue it is, why dig in so hard to protect it?

This is the stupidity if the Dem party that has hindered it forever.

Krafty has done us all a great service here and I appreciate it. He has made something very clear...

1. That trangender folks in sports wasn't made a political issue by Dems. Sports leagues (some goverrnmental, some not) were the ones dealing with the issue and had largely devised a way to address the issue.

2. Pubs, disagreeing with these sports leagues, made this sports issue into a political issue by promising to use the political system and governmental power to prevent sports leagues from continuing the accepting stance they'd taken.

3. Dems, desiring to defend transgender folks, rose to the defense of transgender athletes, specifically, and transgender people, generally. This follows a trend where Pubs create a political issue with transgender folks (bathrooms, designated spaces, etc) where Dems then respond by defending transgender people. Pubs then win at the ballot box based on these ginned up issues because Dems are left defending folks who are now under increased pressure of discrimination.

Dems do nothing to make these into political issues and aren't the ones choosing to fight these issues as political fights. But they are caught between a rock and a hard place because they are forced into action.

And where I really appreciate Krafty is that he doesn't get mealy-mouthed about the solution. He doesn't suggest that Dems should try to deflect from the issue and make it a tiny part of the platform. He doesn't suggest that Dems should try to change the subject. He doesn't suggest they focus bigger issues. He is clear headed and straight-forward in his approach...

"Let the transphobes win."

And because we know it's not just about sports, it's about bathrooms and other gendered spaces and gender-affirming care. And so then the only way to win politically is to completely abandon the battlefield on trans topics and let the transphobes win.

And that would have to be the same response to homophobia and misogyny and racism, because whatever line the Dems are willing to retreat behind, the Pubs are going to push just a little further to create the wedge issue they need to get out their base. Because they are smart enough to know that those wedge issues motivate their voters.

There is no way to only make the "alphabet topic" only 10% of the Dem agenda when Pubs will make it 95% of the public discussion. There is only either standing up for the folks you believe deserve it or there is continued capitulation to keep it out of the public discussion.

So while I disagree with Krafty's stance and the bigotry behind it, I appreciate the very clear way he brought the issue forward.

 

[Paine]

Cynicism dressed up as strategy is exactly how a miserable human was able to take over the country.

Don’t try to convince us the electorate is to be respected and not needing condescension to be won over, when his vote share has increased. Just take a look around and then try defending the integrity of the majority of today’s voting public. His team (especially now) knows just how easy it is to manipulate most voters, and they have exploited that to land us here.

Turns out head-in-the-clouds idealism dressed up as strategy is far less effective in this political climate.

You’re calling Trump’s rise “cynicism dressed up as strategy,” but that’s not actually what won him the votes. What won him support, especially from working-class people who felt ignored, was a story that felt emotionally true. It wasn’t policy detail or even ideology. It was affect: the sense that he saw them, was willing to fight for them, and would blow up the institutions they believed had failed them.

That’s not cynicism. That’s emotional resonance. And if Democrats can’t offer a compelling alternative rooted in dignity, shared struggle, and economic fairness, then they’ll keep losing people to that narrative. Not because voters are dumb or broken, but because we left a vacuum.

You keep insisting the electorate isn’t worth engaging seriously because they’re too easily manipulated. But all that does is justify disengagement and excuse failure. If you really believe most Americans are incapable of seeing through lies, then what are you even trying to save?

Respecting the electorate doesn’t mean worshipping their every opinion. It means recognizing that trust is earned, not assumed. And right now, too many voters don’t trust us because we talk about them more than to them.

 

[Paine]

Krafty has done us all a great service here and I appreciate it. He has made something very clear...

1. That trangender folks in sports wasn't made a political issue by Dems. Sports leagues (some goverrnmental, some not) were the ones dealing with the issue and had largely devised a way to address the issue.

2. Pubs, disagreeing with these sports leagues, made this sports issue into a political issue by promising to use the political system and governmental power to prevent sports leagues from continuing the accepting stance they'd taken.

3. Dems, desiring to defend transgender folks, rose to the defense of transgender athletes, specifically, and transgender people, generally. This follows a trend where Pubs create a political issue with transgender folks (bathrooms, designated spaces, etc) where Dems then respond by defending transgender people. Pubs then win at the ballot box based on these ginned up issues because Dems are left defending folks who are now under increased pressure of discrimination.

Dems do nothing to make these into political issues and aren't the ones choosing to fight these issues as political fights. But they are caught between a rock and a hard place because they are forced into action.

And where I really appreciate Krafty is that he doesn't get mealy-mouthed about the solution. He doesn't suggest that Dems should try to deflect from the issue and make it a tiny part of the platform. He doesn't suggest that Dems should try to change the subject. He doesn't suggest they focus bigger issues. He is clear headed and straight-forward in his approach...

"Let the transphobes win."

And because we know it's not just about sports, it's about bathrooms and other gendered spaces and gender-affirming care. And so then the only way to win politically is to completely abandon the battlefield on trans topics and let the transphobes win.

And that would have to be the same response to homophobia and misogyny and racism, because whatever line the Dems are willing to retreat behind, the Pubs are going to push just a little further to create the wedge issue they need to get out their base. Because they are smart enough to know that those wedge issues motivate their voters.

There is no way to only make the "alphabet topic" only 10% of the Dem agenda when Pubs will make it 95% of the public discussion. There is only either standing up for the folks you believe deserve it or there is continued capitulation to keep it out of the public discussion.

So while I disagree with Krafty's stance and the bigotry behind it, I appreciate the very clear way he brought the issue forward.

Your post also reveals something important, not just about your view, but about a broader liberal tendency to reduce complex political questions to moral binaries. You’ve laid out the choice as “stand up for trans people” or “let the transphobes win.” That framing is emotionally satisfying for liberals, but it short-circuits the real strategic questions Democrats are facing.

The truth is, we live in a country that is deeply unequal and culturally fractured. Winning durable majorities in that landscape means building coalitions that include people with different values, anxieties, and priorities. That doesn’t mean abandoning anyone. It means thinking seriously about how you persuade, connect, and build trust, especially when you’re trying to defend vulnerable groups.

Framing everything as a litmus test of personal virtue avoids the hard work of persuasion. It shuts down discussion of timing, emotional resonance, and coalition management, all of which matter if you’re serious about wielding power, not just holding the moral high ground.

It’s also a trap. If you accept that Republicans will always push cultural wedge issues to dominate public conversation, and your only option is to respond to every single one with maximal volume, you’ve already lost the messaging battle. You’re letting your opponents set the agenda and then blaming your own side when the public doesn’t respond the way you hoped.

I’m not saying we abandon people. I’m saying we need to ask: what emotional and material stories do we tell that can actually break through the noise? Because if all we offer is reactive moralism while the right offers fantasy and fury, voters will keep picking the side that feels like it means something.

Politics isn’t just about being right. It’s about making people feel seen, connected, and moved to act. And that takes more than moral clarity; it takes narrative clarity, emotional connection, and strategic courage.

 

[Centerpiece]

Why not just 0%?

Disaffecting the 10%.
Rather placate them at that level.
The past 20+ years (the Dems) have been giving too much oxygen to that cohort.
Grandma took note. The bro culture took note.
Now you have all the grannies and 18-35 year old males voting for Trump. And the Dems approval numbers are in the tank.
But going full on 0% as you suggest means you might as well go full on MaGa with those cretins. Bro.

 

[wmheel1287]

If you really believe most Americans are incapable of seeing through lies, then what are you even trying to save?

I can only speak for myself when I say "sanity". I think so many of us are so scarred by the abandonment of decency and thought in our society that we can't fight for the nation any longer...we are just trying to hang on to our own reality.

It's a human trait that one can only be slapped in the face so many times when offering an olive branch before giving up on the process altogether.

 

[Paine]

I can only speak for myself when I say "sanity". I think so many of us are so scarred by the abandonment of decency and thought in our society that we can't fight for the nation any longer...we are just trying to hang on to our own reality.

It's a human trait that one can only be slapped in the face so many times when offering an olive branch before giving up on the process altogether.

I hear you, and I respect where you’re coming from. You’ve been in the fight longer than I have, and I don’t take lightly the toll it takes to keep showing up, especially when decency feels like a losing proposition.

But if everyone who still values decency, empathy, and shared reality gives up on public life, what’s left? Just the liars and the cynics. The people who aren’t tired because cruelty is their fuel. That’s why I don’t think we have the luxury of disengaging, not if we care about our neighbors, our kids, or our future.

Maybe that’s where my youth gives me a different vantage point. I wasn’t shaped by the same periods of optimism and betrayal. I came of age watching things fall apart, institutions fail, trust collapse, basic norms erode. Instead of making me cynical, it’s made me hungry for something better.

I’m not saying we keep offering the same olive branch expecting different results. I’m saying we need to find new language, new stories, new ways to connect. Not because it’s easy, but because giving up guarantees we lose more than just elections.

 

[Centerpiece]

You are going to lose some people already, why not do more of a good thing and just ignore the issue altogether? 10% is too much for Grandma and the bros. We need their approval so why the half measure? Won't they still hate Democrats for that 10%?

Somewhat agree. But I think the problem arose when the Dems gave 100% to protect only 10% of the population. That was entirely too much for granny, the bros and centrist Americans. Granted, granny and the bros are going to go ballistic anyway… but the centrist Americans could catch the drift - as long as Dems didn’t go all in on allowing Bruce Jenner to legit compete in a sanctioned foot race for a prize against girls.

 

[EyeballKid]

I agree. That plus immigration. In Denmark liberals trounced Conservatives because they took a reasonable stand on immigration. They advocated for strict enforcement of the borders and rational control (not an end to) immigration. They won going away, unlike elsewhere in Europe. Dems should take similar stances.

Dems supported the bipartisan immigration reform bill last year. It was the most significant proposal in decades, and was exceedingly moderate—actually giving conservatives nearly everything they’ve claimed to want for years.

Trump and the MAGA crowd were still able to paint it as a weak liberal bill that allowed our borders to remain “open.”

 

[hedge]

It's a human trait that one can only be slapped in the face so many times when offering an olive branch before giving up on the process altogether.

 

[SnoopRob]

Your post also reveals something important, not just about your view, but about a broader liberal tendency to reduce complex political questions to moral binaries. You’ve laid out the choice as “stand up for trans people” or “let the transphobes win.” That framing is emotionally satisfying for liberals, but it short-circuits the real strategic questions Democrats are facing.

The truth is, we live in a country that is deeply unequal and culturally fractured. Winning durable majorities in that landscape means building coalitions that include people with different values, anxieties, and priorities. That doesn’t mean abandoning anyone. It means thinking seriously about how you persuade, connect, and build trust, especially when you’re trying to defend vulnerable groups.

Framing everything as a litmus test of personal virtue avoids the hard work of persuasion. It shuts down discussion of timing, emotional resonance, and coalition management, all of which matter if you’re serious about wielding power, not just holding the moral high ground.

It’s also a trap. If you accept that Republicans will always push cultural wedge issues to dominate public conversation, and your only option is to respond to every single one with maximal volume, you’ve already lost the messaging battle. You’re letting your opponents set the agenda and then blaming your own side when the public doesn’t respond the way you hoped.

I’m not saying we abandon people. I’m saying we need to ask: what emotional and material stories do we tell that can actually break through the noise? Because if all we offer is reactive moralism while the right offers fantasy and fury, voters will keep picking the side that feels like it means something.

Politics isn’t just about being right. It’s about making people feel seen, connected, and moved to act. And that takes more than moral clarity; it takes narrative clarity, emotional connection, and strategic courage.

Answer me one question well and I'll take your reply seriously:

How do you build a coalition that includes both transgender folks & their strong allies plus working class conservatives that will vote against transgender rights even to their own economic detriment?

Please give me real specifics of how you bridge that gap, not generalities about "emotional connection" and "telling the right stories" unless you're going to tell me, with specificity, what stories you can tell that will bring those two groups together to vote for the same candidates.

Note: My take isn't because I'm about "moral binaries", it's because working class conservatives are. I'm glad to live in a pluralistic society where everyone can live out their own lives and beliefs as long as it doesn't infringe on others' lives and rights. But as long as Dems aren't willing to sell out LGBTQ+ folks, then we're not appealing to (white) working class conservatives in any real numbers because it is that group will fuck up not only their personal financial futures but the entire fucking economy in order to vote against "wokeness" (read: minorities).

 

[Paine]

Answer me one question well and I'll take your reply seriously:

How do you build a coalition that includes both transgender folks & their strong allies plus working class conservatives that will vote against transgender rights even to their own economic detriment?

Please give me real specifics of how you bridge that gap, not generalities about "emotional connection" and "telling the right stories" unless you're going to tell me, with specificity, what stories you can tell that will bring those two groups together to vote for the same candidates.

Note: My take isn't because I'm about "moral binaries", it's because working class conservatives are. I'm glad to live in a pluralistic society where everyone can live out their own lives and beliefs as long as it doesn't infringe on others' lives and rights. But as long as Dems aren't willing to sell out LGBTQ+ folks, then we're not appealing to (white) working class conservatives in any real numbers because it is that group will fuck up not only their personal financial futures but the entire fucking economy in order to vote against "wokeness" (read: minorities).

You’re assuming the only way to build a coalition is by getting one side to change its mind on the other’s most contentious issue. That’s not how coalition politics works. Coalitions are built on overlapping interests, not total agreement.

I’m not suggesting we “bring together” a trans activist and a conservative who opposes trans rights over a campfire and get them to sing kumbaya.

What I’m saying is quite clear: you build a coalition by anchoring the agenda in material concerns: wages, housing, healthcare, public services. You know, the things that cut across identity lines and speak to people’s lived realities. You don’t pretend differences don’t exist, but you also don’t lead with the hardest edge of your cultural platform in every conversation. That’s called strategic discipline.

Politics is not a goddamn seminar. It’s a battlefield for power, and power comes from building majorities. That means recognizing the emotional terrain we’re operating in. A terrain where people vote on identity and story more than pure, rational logic. The right understands this. They flood the zone with emotionally resonant lies. We respond with lectures and litmus tests.

I’m not sure what more you want from me. Are you asking me to write out the entire ad campaign, as if anything short of a line-by-line script isn’t a serious argument? You understand perfectly well the kind of stories I’m talking about because I’ve typed out the same words dozens of times over the last week: ones grounded in shared material struggle, told with emotional clarity and narrative power. Stories that speak to what it feels like to live in this country right now, to be crushed by rent, medical bills, or job insecurity.

You say we can’t appeal to working-class conservatives “in any real numbers” without selling out LGBTQ+ people. But how do you know? What serious attempt has been made to run on a truly universal, emotionally grounded, materially focused populist message that doesn’t fall into the culture war traps but also doesn’t abandon vulnerable people? Democrats haven’t tried that. Instead, they lurch between reactive moralism and donor-approved technocracy, and then wonder why trust has evaporated.

So let me now turn the question back to you: What is your strategy? Not what you’re against, not who you’re defending, but what is the actual political strategy for winning power, building a durable majority, and making material improvements in people’s lives?

 

[hedge]

So let me now turn the question back to you: What is your strategy? Not what you’re against, not who you’re defending, but what is the actual political strategy for winning power, building a durable majority, and making material improvements in people’s lives?

Direct deposits. Not tax cuts, child credits, loan forgiveness, none of that shit. Cold hard cash. That checks every box you listed. Guaranteed votes...