It is good to see people trying to rectify the Dems' loss. The article on "How To Win Friends and Votes In Rural America" is one of thousands trying to do this. The article can be summed up in these quotes: “The more you sweat, the more votes you get.” and "A focus on local issues not only changes the conversation, it shows that Democrats are in sync with rural voters and their concerns."
This is organizing, connecting with voters, playing to what's important to them by finding out what local issues are. This is the classic "take the high road" approach to winning elections. However, it has failed. Why? Because the Republicans use political deception to gain supporters. The Democrats tell voters the truth about what the problems are and what a politician can do to solve them. But if political truth literacy is low, deception is the winning strategy. That's what the Dueling Loops of the Political Powerplace model explains. Now perhaps you can see why Republican politicians tell so many lies, compared to Democrats. The model is explained in this article:
Thanks. I subscribed to his site about a week ago and have made several comments. Two are below. What a sharp, dedicated guy! I feel so humbled when reading his pieces.
Just so you know, The Analytical Activist is an experiment. Since I'm not a PhD, I'm finding it hard to get papers on the democratic backsliding problem accepted. I've been to 4 conferences and presented papers there. All those political scientists love them.
But journal editors and referees don't. Sigh. They didn't hear me discuss what's really important about this research and do illuminating Q&A, and see first hand that even though I lack a PhD I know my stuff. I even said I don't have a PhD at the beginning of a talk. The immediate reply was "That doesn't matter." I was elated.
Plus, a root cause analysis approach is unheard of in political science journals, since it's not in textbooks. But I keep on trying. My next task is to rewrite a paper that was just rejected and submit to another journal.
Thanks. Absolutely hadn't seen this, the military weapons side of info warfare. I'm dealing with the propaganda side of info warfare. Certainly lots of the strategies are the same, but the battlefield is different. It's in media systems.
Regarding the above comment of mine, the paper has been rewritten and submitted. Now I'm on a new project, which you can see on my Substack site. It's the Trump Tracker Project.
I too am frustrated by lack of Democratic Party leadership / strategic plan. Was happy to see recent Substack with ideas for Democrats.
https://open.substack.com/pub/theliberalpatriot/p/how-to-win-friends-and-votes-in-rural?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=13nvrr
It is good to see people trying to rectify the Dems' loss. The article on "How To Win Friends and Votes In Rural America" is one of thousands trying to do this. The article can be summed up in these quotes: “The more you sweat, the more votes you get.” and "A focus on local issues not only changes the conversation, it shows that Democrats are in sync with rural voters and their concerns."
This is organizing, connecting with voters, playing to what's important to them by finding out what local issues are. This is the classic "take the high road" approach to winning elections. However, it has failed. Why? Because the Republicans use political deception to gain supporters. The Democrats tell voters the truth about what the problems are and what a politician can do to solve them. But if political truth literacy is low, deception is the winning strategy. That's what the Dueling Loops of the Political Powerplace model explains. Now perhaps you can see why Republican politicians tell so many lies, compared to Democrats. The model is explained in this article:
https://analyticalactivist.substack.com/i/160020072/the-fifth-why-question
IMHO, until the Dems incorporate the insights in the analysis in the above article, they will be unable to formulate a winning strategy.
Michael Sellers - former CIA agent (Russia Specialist) has a series of articles on this subject on Substack that might interest you.
Thanks. I subscribed to his site about a week ago and have made several comments. Two are below. What a sharp, dedicated guy! I feel so humbled when reading his pieces.
https://michaeldsellers.substack.com/p/where-the-hell-are-the-dems/comment/104199724
https://michaeldsellers.substack.com/p/the-trump-administrations-post-truth/comment/103824874
Just so you know, The Analytical Activist is an experiment. Since I'm not a PhD, I'm finding it hard to get papers on the democratic backsliding problem accepted. I've been to 4 conferences and presented papers there. All those political scientists love them.
But journal editors and referees don't. Sigh. They didn't hear me discuss what's really important about this research and do illuminating Q&A, and see first hand that even though I lack a PhD I know my stuff. I even said I don't have a PhD at the beginning of a talk. The immediate reply was "That doesn't matter." I was elated.
Plus, a root cause analysis approach is unheard of in political science journals, since it's not in textbooks. But I keep on trying. My next task is to rewrite a paper that was just rejected and submit to another journal.
Consider this publication:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/june/information-warfare-staring-us-face
Thanks. Absolutely hadn't seen this, the military weapons side of info warfare. I'm dealing with the propaganda side of info warfare. Certainly lots of the strategies are the same, but the battlefield is different. It's in media systems.
Regarding the above comment of mine, the paper has been rewritten and submitted. Now I'm on a new project, which you can see on my Substack site. It's the Trump Tracker Project.