Brand Identity and Successful Politics

[Crockett]

This article contends Trump is winning because he understands branding in a party that doesn't have a good unifying message except "Stop Obama. " http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/how-trump-re-branded-the-gop-213745

Sadly enough, I don't think the Democrats have a great brand or unifying message either.

 

[Mr. Deez]

This article contends Trump is winning because he understands branding in a party that doesn't have a good unifying message except "Stop Obama. " http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/how-trump-re-branded-the-gop-213745

Sadly enough, I don't think the Democrats have a great brand or unifying message either.

I think Hirsch makes a good point. If your entire agenda is being against someone rather than in favor of something, it's pretty easy for someone to come along who's also against that same someone but also in favor of something nutty and exploit the incoherence.

The Democrats' brand is in bad shape, but it's not in as bad of shape, nor is it in bad shape in as many of states. Basically, the Democratic brand is garbage in the South and non-Hispanic mountain states. That's a problem for them. However, the Republican brand is garbage throughout the West Coast and the Northeast, which includes a lot more people and electoral votes. They have a much bigger problem.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I do think there's some truth to this article, albeit its incredibly slanted and one-sided take on most of the issues.

One thing I would disagree with though is that I'm not convinced Trump is rebranding the GOP at all. I think Trump is just imposing his own brand. None of the independents or democrats who are jumping ship for Trump (and yes, there are a lot of them) aren't doing it because they believe in any "republican message". They're doing it because they think Trump will just steamroll in and do what he thinks needs to be done, and I suspect most people see that as being outside the brand of a party - which is as much as anything what this primary season has been about. People have made it pretty clear they're fed up with both parties.

Trump's no republican or conservative; he just decided that was where he could gain the most traction and start building momentum for his campaign. And I think most people who are following him are gravitating to that.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It's a chicken/egg scenario. Did the establishment become the "party of no" that created the Tea Party or did the latter drive the party to become obstructionist? I'd wager the latter. I don't think these are the same people as Trump's base though. That base must surely be supporting Cruz and Rubio before that. Yes, there is general dissatisfaction with Washington elite but overall Trump has tapped into a vein in both parties that with his "we never win brand" particularly focused on voters who tend to be Caucasian, under-educated, and are lower rung on the economic scale. These are voters that both parties have taken for granted. Either the R and D leaders felt they wouldn't vote or had other ways to control their vote via emphasis on social issues (R's) or unions (D's).

So, with the respect to the brand, the Tea Party has had a role in the R's becoming a party of "no" that has opened the door for Trump. Just as equally, the D's have lost their way in fighting for jobs for the middle and lower classes but just as importantly focused too much on placating the minority vote.

 

[Mr. Deez]

SH, your analysis is better than Hirsch's. You should get paid to write this stuff.

 

[Crockett]

That base must surely be supporting Cruz and Rubio before that.

I've visited a few Tea Party meetings and if Cruz had been created in a lab he could not more perfectly embody the sentiments I heard there.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

The democrats unifying message is "we will give you whatever you want".

 

[texas_ex2000]

I've visited a few Tea Party meetings and if Cruz had been created in a lab he could not more perfectly embody the sentiments I heard there.

What the heck were you doing at a Tea Party meeting?

Protesting?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

The second part of the democrats unifying message is "and those mean greedy republicans will take it all away".

 

[Mr. Deez]

The democrats unifying message is "we will give you whatever you want".

They actually have different unifying messages for each constituency in their coalition. Some of it focuses on giving away free stuff, but to many of their constituencies they don't even have to do that. Instead, they rely on fear of the opposition.

To Hispanics they promise not to deport their friends and family members. And of course, they use the fear of Republicans breaking up families with overbroad deportation policies.

To blacks they promise to be hostile to police, protect affirmative action, and stop Republicans from taking away their rights.

To secular whites with money, they promise to stop Republicans from enacting religion-based laws at the state level such as gay marriage bans, prayer in public schools, etc. They also promise not to let the government be too hostile to key business interests in enacting their policy agenda.

To single women, they promise to protect their ability to get birth control and have easy access to abortion services when things go wrong when they have sex with dudes. They also promise to protect them from what they perceive to be sexist bosses, whom they tie to the GOP. They don't offer them much on specifics on that, but they don't have to.

To unions, they basically just promise not to be as hostile as Republicans would be. They don't really do them a lot of favors, and they don't have to.

To young voters, they tacitly promise not to bust them for pot smoking and make condoms readily available. They do show interest in doing something about tuition costs, and since they're a big cause of the problem, frankly they should.

 

[Mr. Deez]

What the heck were you doing at a Tea Party meeting?

Protesting?

I've never met Crockett, but I don't picture him protesting.

 

[texas_ex2000]

I've never met Crockett, but I don't picture him protesting.

I'm just teasing Crockett.

I just thought him at a TP rally was even less likely than me at an Occupy Wall Street pep rally.

 

[Crockett]

What the heck were you doing at a Tea Party meeting?

Listening and observing. Honestly I had a long visit with Dick Armey, one of the Tea Party's early leaders to write a piece for a local paper. I knew and liked Armey a lot as a Congressman because while he was more conservative than I was, he was also smart, charming and had a way of working for the greater good. Believe it or not, I believe in fiscal discipline. Armey had envisioned an organization that would focus on budget and economic policy and not squander political capital on issues like Abortion, Gay Marriage, etc., where there is no reasonable hope of consensus

Now the Tea Party has become basically a Super Republican and social conservatism is at its core. It's highly partisan, inflexible and more then embodiment of Dan Patrick/Ted Cruz crowd that doesn't count wins unless it gets 100 percent of what it wanted. If the TP continues to dominate the Republican Party, the party is doomed because most people don't hold the same beliefs and their success will mobilize liberals and centerists who for the most part want progressive taxation, safe and legal abortion and gays being able to go about their business in peace.

For now, Republicans have been energetic and strategic enough to gain political power much in excess of its political support among the general public. The counterpressure is building, though it only shows in presidential election years when a higher percentage of the population gets engaged.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Now the Tea Party has become basically a Super Republican and social conservatism is at its core.

Pre-Trump, I would have agreed with this wholeheartedly, but now I'm not so sure. I see lot of TPers (such as Katrina Pierson) jumping on the Trump Bandwagon, even though he isn't much of an embodiment for fiscal or social conservatism. That tells me that the unifying force behind the TP isn't policy of any kind. It's nationalism and of course, persona and attitude. Trump gives them plenty.

 

[Crockett]

see lot of TPers (such as Katrina Pierson) jumping on the Trump Bandwagon, even though he isn't much of an embodiment for fiscal or social conservatism.

The Trump movement and the Tea Party movement look very different to me. The Trump movement is new and very different, less intellectual and less Republican than the Tea Party I observed up close. Of course, there aren't a lot of blue collar folks in Flower Mound.

 

[Seattle Husker]

They actually have different unifying messages for each constituency in their coalition. Some of it focuses on giving away free stuff, but to many of their constituencies they don't even have to do that. Instead, they rely on fear of the opposition.

To Hispanics they promise not to deport their friends and family members. And of course, they use the fear of Republicans breaking up families with overbroad deportation policies.

To blacks they promise to be hostile to police, protect affirmative action, and stop Republicans from taking away their rights.

To secular whites with money, they promise to stop Republicans from enacting religion-based laws at the state level such as gay marriage bans, prayer in public schools, etc. They also promise not to let the government be too hostile to key business interests in enacting their policy agenda.

To single women, they promise to protect their ability to get birth control and have easy access to abortion services when things go wrong when they have sex with dudes. They also promise to protect them from what they perceive to be sexist bosses, whom they tie to the GOP. They don't offer them much on specifics on that, but they don't have to.

To unions, they basically just promise not to be as hostile as Republicans would be. They don't really do them a lot of favors, and they don't have to.

To young voters, they tacitly promise not to bust them for pot smoking and make condoms readily available. They do show interest in doing something about tuition costs, and since they're a big cause of the problem, frankly they should.

That sounds like an inclusive party platform.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The Trump movement and the Tea Party movement look very different to me. The Trump movement is new and very different, less intellectual and less Republican than the Tea Party I observed up close. Of course, there aren't a lot of blue collar folks in Flower Mound.

I think the groups are very different. Trump is grabbing the poor white working class crowd as his base. This group is less informed on issues. The TP crowd was very informed and already attuned to the conservative message. I said it in another thread but this poor white working class has been taken for granted by both the left and right. They are economically driven but could care less about the national debt but rather their own checking account. Free trade, big business and environmental groups have been placated by the left/right establishment leaving these disaffected workers in the middle with nowhere to go. Trump is correct, he's creating a new movement with a new base. The question is, will the Republican establishment accept Trump's new lurch to the left on many key issues that have been stalwarts of the Republican party platform for decades?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Crock and SH,

You guys aren't entirely wrong, but I think you're overlooking that there are multiple constituencies within the Tea Party. The early Tea Partiers were informed and were focused on money and fiscal issues. Think Dick Armey and Rick Santelli, whose remarks from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange are often credited with launching the Tea Party. These guys would have appealed to Crockett's friends in Flower Mound, a city that's prime old school Tea Party territory. It's wealthy enough that its people care about taxes and government spending, but it's not big enough or wealthy enough that its people are going to be big recipients of federal largess and bailouts.

However, the Tea Party grew significantly by attracting people who had never been involved in politics before and therefore were not very informed. I think this is where a lot of their ideological incoherence as well as ignorance about how Congress and the Presidency work is coming from. These people would call themselves fiscal conservatives but not beyond the "bumper sticker" level. They're more concerned with illegal immigration and to a lesser but still significant extent, social issues. They were also more blue collar. Think Katrina Pierson, who is from Garland, a city that's much bluer collar than Flower Mound but still Republican (though likely turning purple with growing black, Hispanic, and Asian populations). I think this portion of the Tea Party is more receptive to Trump.