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

[wmheel1287]

This is exactly why Democrats lose trust. Not because voters are all bigots, but because voters can sense when their leaders don’t believe in anything beyond navigating perceptions.

Dont you think the entire Trump phenomenon undercuts this assertion?

Hell, I used to believe it too, but I sure don't anymore. It seems to me that Americans want to be told a fairy tale and whomever can be the most entertaining in telling that fairy tale will win most any election at this point.

I speak to people with genuine care and empathy. They would 100x rather hear Trump on those same issues. Oh and im quite literally a storyteller that can have any audience eating out of the palm of my hand...done it for decades. I just can't lie to people about things that matter.

When I teach large audiences of 1000+, ill always work hilarious stories into the class to make points about the material and make people laugh and connect. Some stretch 20 minutes or more. People are usually crying from laughing so hard. Inevitably, dozens will ask the same question afterward..."was that story really true?" My response is always the same..."does it really matter?" They laugh again and smile and leave happy.

That's your American voter at this point.

 

[Paine]

Dont you think the entire Trump phenomenon undercuts this assertion?

Hell, I used to believe it too, but I sure don't anymore. It seems to me that Americans want to be told a fairy tale and whomever can be the most entertaining in telling that fairy tale will win most any election at this point.

I speak to people with genuine care and empathy. They would 100x rather hear Trump on those same issues.

You’re saying people want a story: something emotional, moral, and bigger than themselves. I agree. That’s what Trump offers, even if it’s a destructive fantasy. He gives people the feeling that he sees them, that he’s in the fight, that he’s sticking it to the people they think have looked down on them. It’s theater, but it feels like truth. And in politics, feelings build loyalty more than facts.

That’s why Democrats need more than policy tweaks. They need someone who can tell a different kind of story rooted in dignity, work, and shared struggle. Not spectacle, but purpose.

Your story illustrates the point perfectly. People want to laugh, feel seen, feel understood. That emotional connection matters more than whether every fact checks out. It’s not about lying, it’s about recognition.

And yes, Trump offers that. But so could we. If we told stories grounded in real life—in labor, sacrifice, and community—we could meet that emotional need without surrendering to fantasy. It seems like you already know how to do that. The political left needs to catch up.

 

[wmheel1287]

You’re saying people want a story: something emotional, moral, and bigger than themselves. I agree. That’s what Trump offers, even if it’s a destructive fantasy. He gives people the feeling that he sees them, that he’s in the fight, that he’s sticking it to the people they think have looked down on them. It’s theater, but it feels like truth. And in politics, feelings build loyalty more than facts.

That’s why Democrats need more than policy tweaks. They need someone who can tell a different kind of story rooted in dignity, work, and shared struggle. Not spectacle, but purpose.

Your story illustrates the point perfectly. People want to laugh, feel seen, feel understood. That emotional connection matters more than whether every fact checks out. It’s not about lying, it’s about recognition.

And yes, Trump offers that. But so could we. If we told stories grounded in real life—in labor, sacrifice, and community—we could meet that emotional need without surrendering to fantasy. It seems like you already know how to do that. The political left needs to catch up.

I think you missed rhe point that my stories are all 100% fabricated, embellished, and created entirely to suit the situation and audience. There isn't a shred of truth to them.

 

[Centerpiece]

You’re getting close to what I’m saying, but I want to be precise here. It’s not that the “alphabet trail” topics should be banished to the periphery. It’s that Democrats let those topics become symbolic stand-ins for the whole of their moral identity without anchoring them in a bigger story about solidarity, dignity, and shared struggle.

The right exploits these issues to stoke fear. Too often, Democrats respond either defensively, or by treating symbolic representation as a substitute for actual transformation. That leaves everyone frustrated: both the people who feel culturally alienated and the marginalized communities who aren’t getting meaningful change either.

It’s not about dropping DEI or LGBTQ+ issues. It’s about connecting them to a politics that speaks to universal concerns: healthcare, wages, safety, fairness. When Bernie did that, it wasn’t because he ignored identity, it’s because he embedded it in a vision that felt collective, not siloed.

So yeah, grandma is angry about the trans issue. But that’s because the right gave her a story that felt urgent and moral. Democrats need to offer a better one; not just for her, but for everyone.

I think we may be of a mind. I'm not advocating dropping the alphabet completely - just simply putting it in it's place percentage-wise.
If the total population is only 10% - 20% marginalized via the alphabet, then the Dems should make their messaging and their campaigning reflect that. Quit with the 24-7, 365 pounding away at all of that "woke" stuff (as the right-wingers say).

However, if 99% of the populace is in need of hard rail issues (you know the ones: Childcare, Healthcare, Wages, Jobs, Education, etc. etc. - all the things the 1% doesn't give 2 shits about) then the Dems should make those things 80%-90% of their campaigning and messaging, and leave the other 10%-20% on the periphery.

 

[wmheel1287]

I think we may be of a mind. I'm not advocating dropping the alphabet completely - just simply putting it in it's place percentage-wise.
If the total population is only 10% - 20% marginalized via the alphabet, then the Dems should make their messaging and their campaigning reflect that. Quit with the 24-7, 365 pounding away at all of that "woke" stuff (as the right-wingers say).

However, if 99% of the populace is in need of hard rail issues (you know the ones: Childcare, Healthcare, Wages, Jobs, Education, etc. etc. - all the things the 1% doesn't give 2 shits about) then the Dems should make those things 80%-90% of their campaigning and messaging, and leave the other 10%-20% on the periphery.

Need to stop all of it. Im gay and the fucking mess is tedious as hell. I don't need a month to be proud and I don't need a political party to cater to me. I need people to be reasonable and kind. That's fucking all.

 

[hedge]

Why don’t we have shows that treat Amazon warehouse workers as the protagonists of American life?

B/c people don't want to be bored and depressed?

 

[Centerpiece]

Need to stop all of it. Im gay and the fucking mess is tedious as hell. I don't need a month to be proud and I don't need a political party to cater to me. I need people to be reasonable and kind. That's fucking all.

Drop the mic.
We're done here.
Well said.

 

[Paine]

I think you missed rhe point that my stories are all 100% fabricated, embellished, and created entirely to suit the situation and audience. There isn't a shred of truth to them.

I didn’t miss that, your point actually reinforces mine. You’re showing how people respond to stories emotionally, not analytically. Whether the story is true or not doesn’t matter in the moment. What matters is that it feels real, lands emotionally, and creates a connection. That’s how humans process meaning, and that’s exactly the terrain we’re on politically.

But here’s where I think we diverge: I don’t think the only option in politics is to fabricate stories to reach people. There’s a middle ground: honest storytelling that’s emotionally resonant because it captures something real about people’s lives. It doesn’t need to be made up. Life already contains pain, humor, struggle, and grace. The challenge is telling those stories with heart.

Trump tells lies that feel true. We need to tell the truth in a way that feels as urgent and alive as those lies. If the emotional connection dimension of politics is inevitable, the only question is whether it gets used to manipulate people or to build something better.

 

[mpaer]

Need to stop all of it. Im gay and the fucking mess is tedious as hell. I don't need a month to be proud and I don't need a political party to cater to me. I need people to be reasonable and kind. That's fucking all.

I hear you
At this point it is so complicated Dems almost have to scream about things ,because Pub Legisltures are in race to bottom in ways to make it point that group X,Y and X are subhuman .....

 

[Centerpiece]

I didn’t miss that, your point actually reinforces mine. You’re showing how people respond to stories emotionally, not analytically. Whether the story is true or not doesn’t matter in the moment. What matters is that it feels real, lands emotionally, and creates a connection. That’s how humans process meaning, and that’s exactly the terrain we’re on politically.

But here’s where I think we diverge: I don’t think the only option in politics is to fabricate stories to reach people. There’s a middle ground: honest storytelling that’s emotionally resonant because it captures something real about people’s lives. It doesn’t need to be made up. Life already contains pain, humor, struggle, and grace. The challenge is telling those stories with heart.

Trump tells lies that feel true. We need to tell the truth in a way that feels as urgent and alive as those lies. If the emotional connection dimension of politics is inevitable, the only question is whether it gets used to manipulate people or to build something better.

Have you tried song-writing?
What you're describing is exactly what singer-songwriters strive for on the daily. John Prine. Bob Dylan. Gordon Lightfoot. Carol King. Joni Mitchell. James Taylor. John Lennon. The list is endless.

 

[SnoopRob]

I think we may be of a mind. I'm not advocating dropping the alphabet completely - just simply putting it in it's place percentage-wise.
If the total population is only 10% - 20% marginalized via the alphabet, then the Dems should make their messaging and their campaigning reflect that. Quit with the 24-7, 365 pounding away at all of that "woke" stuff (as the right-wingers say).

However, if 99% of the populace is in need of hard rail issues (you know the ones: Childcare, Healthcare, Wages, Jobs, Education, etc. etc. - all the things the 1% doesn't give 2 shits about) then the Dems should make those things 80%-90% of their campaigning and messaging, and leave the other 10%-20% on the periphery.

I don’t think that, by and large, Dems are the ones making political issues out of DEI, LGBTQ+, etc issues. Pubs are the ones doing that by focusing on their opposition to such people/actions. Dems largely discuss such issues in response to Pub accusations and fear-mongering and these issues are kept in the public eye by Pubs, not Dems.

If that is true, how do Dems only make it 10% of the political discussion when they aren’t the ones introducing it into the discussion?

 

[Paine]

I think we may be of a mind. I'm not advocating dropping the alphabet completely - just simply putting it in it's place percentage-wise.
If the total population is only 10% - 20% marginalized via the alphabet, then the Dems should make their messaging and their campaigning reflect that. Quit with the 24-7, 365 pounding away at all of that "woke" stuff (as the right-wingers say).

However, if 99% of the populace is in need of hard rail issues (you know the ones: Childcare, Healthcare, Wages, Jobs, Education, etc. etc. - all the things the 1% doesn't give 2 shits about) then the Dems should make those things 80%-90% of their campaigning and messaging, and leave the other 10%-20% on the periphery.

I think we’re close, but I’d frame it a bit differently.

The issue isn’t just that “alphabet” issues take up too much space, it’s that Democrats often present them in a way that feels disconnected from the broader struggles most people are facing. Identity and material conditions aren’t separate lanes. A trans person getting priced out of an apartment or a gay worker without paid sick leave isn’t dealing with a niche issue. That’s housing. That’s labor. That’s the working class.

That’s why I don’t think the answer is to “put identity issues on the periphery,” but to integrate them into a bigger story, one rooted in dignity, shared struggle, and economic justice. When Democrats frame everything through narrow identity lenses or consultant-tested language, it alienates people, including the very folks they think they’re serving.

Wmmheel put it bluntly, and he’s right. That captures it. Most people, regardless of identity, want to be treated like human beings, not like outreach targets.

So yes: lead with healthcare, childcare, wages, housing, union rights. That’s the backbone of a unifying message. But don’t treat inclusion as something you squeeze into the final paragraph of a stump speech. Build a politics where everyone’s dignity is part of the same fight. That’s how you cut through the noise and actually connect.

 

[wmheel1287]

I didn’t miss that, your point actually reinforces mine. You’re showing how people respond to stories emotionally, not analytically. Whether the story is true or not doesn’t matter in the moment. What matters is that it feels real, lands emotionally, and creates a connection. That’s how humans process meaning, and that’s exactly the terrain we’re on politically.

But here’s where I think we diverge: I don’t think the only option in politics is to fabricate stories to reach people. There’s a middle ground: honest storytelling that’s emotionally resonant because it captures something real about people’s lives. It doesn’t need to be made up. Life already contains pain, humor, struggle, and grace. The challenge is telling those stories with heart.

Trump tells lies that feel true. We need to tell the truth in a way that feels as urgent and alive as those lies. If the emotional connection dimension of politics is inevitable, the only question is whether it gets used to manipulate people or to build something better.

Yeah...i hope you're correct but I don't think so. I've very rarely seen anyone telling true stories and felt entertained or compelled. There's a reason everyone knows Mark Twain and nobody knows the truth tellers of his generation.

 

[Paine]

Have you tried song-writing?
What you're describing is exactly what singer-songwriters strive for on the daily. John Prine. Bob Dylan. Gordon Lightfoot. Carol King. Joni Mitchell. James Taylor. John Lennon. The list is endless.

Absolutely, and I really appreciate you saying that. Not sure I’d be a good song writer, but folk and country music, especially artists like John Prine, have been a huge part of how I understand the world. There’s a plainspoken honesty and emotional depth in that tradition that cuts deeper than any white paper ever could. It’s storytelling rooted in working people’s lives: funny, tragic, tender, pissed off, and it makes you feel the stakes.

 

[Paine]

Yeah...i hope you're correct but I don't think so. I've very rarely seen anyone telling true stories and felt entertained or compelled. There's a reason everyone knows Mark Twain and nobody knows the truth tellers of his generation.

Twain’s stories endure because they were entertaining, sharp, and full of human contradiction, even when they weren’t strictly “true.” But what made them great wasn’t that they were fake. It was that they revealed something real about people, something that stuck. Same as my point above regarding country and folk music.

Look, I’m not arguing that truth wins on its own. I’m saying we need to treat truth with the same narrative seriousness the best storytellers give fiction. Just laying out facts won’t move anyone. But truth shaped with story, rhythm, character, and emotional weight? That can hit just as hard. It’s harder, yeah, but it’s not impossible.

This is actually part of why Democrats lean so heavily on abortion messaging I think. It’s one of the only issues where they’ve consistently told emotionally resonant stories. They’ve connected it to fear, trauma, autonomy, and injustice in ways that feel real to people. It’s not about policy details, it’s about the stakes.

But the fact that abortion is basically the only emotionally compelling issue they hit hard shows how limited their storytelling toolbox is right now. Imagine if they talked about wages, housing, debt, and healthcare with that same clarity and emotional weight. They might actually start to rebuild trust with people who’ve tuned them out.

The point isn’t to bore people with reality. It’s to tell it in a way that feels alive, urgent, and human. If we leave that emotional terrain to the bullshit artists, we shouldn’t be surprised when they win.

 

[Peppers49]

I'm so fucking tired of hearing about "woke." Yougov has a 5 point difference between GOP and Democratic Party favorability...that's nearly the margin of error. The issue of Democratic Party favorability is overblown and would not be an issue had the Democratic Party had a real Presidential primary and nominated a strong candidate who could connect with voters. Harris ran an admirable campaign but she was the wrong candidate for this election in nearly every sense.

Yeah this is pretty much where I land too. Don’t necessarily disagree with Paine about the Democratic Party missing the mark with its overall platform, letting down voters, etc. but I really think at the end of the day they simply didn’t run the correct candidate in 2016 and 2024. Maybe that’s partly a reflection of the average American voter’s ignorance or misogyny, but HRC and then Harris just didn’t resonate with enough people to cover the margins.

 

[Kraftyheel89]

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.

 

[mpaer]

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.

It was a problem in messaging for sure

 

[Centerpiece]

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.

You're not wrong.
Which is a saying I don't really like that's being over-used today.
The Alphabet gambit should only take up the same amount of oxygen in the room as is warranted. 10% maybe? +/-

 

[duluoz]

Hell, I used to believe it too, but I sure don't anymore. It seems to me that Americans want to be told a fairy tale and whomever can be the most entertaining in telling that fairy tale will win most any election at this point.

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.