Is Obama ruining the Democratic Party brand?

[grahamhgreen]

From Seth Godin - the master of marketing:

"If I encounter a brand and I don't know what it means or does, it has zero power. If I have an expectation of what an organization will do for me, but I don't care about that, no power.

Fedex is a powerful brand because you always get what you expect, and the relief you get from their consistency is high.

AT&T is a weak brand because you almost never get what you expect, because they do so many different things and because the value of what they create has little emotional resonance (it sure used to though, when they did one thing, they did it perfectly and they were the only ones who could connect you).

The dangers of brand ubiquity are then obvious. When your brand is lots of things (like AOL became) then the expectations were all over the place and the emotional resonance started to fade. If the predictability of your brand starts to erode its emotional power (a restaurant that becomes boring) then you need to become predictable in your joyous unpredictability!

If you want to grow a valuable brand, my advice is to keep awareness close to zero among the people you're not ready for yet, and build the most predictable, emotional experience you can among those that care about you." http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/04/the_brand_formu.html


With Obama's constant equivocating and capitulating to power brokers (Big PHRMA, and big insurance during health care), and the Republican party (extension of the bush tax cuts), does anyone really know what the democratic Party stands for anymore?

Obviously, the voters do not.

Obama is breaking all the branding rules, and with it the brand our party has taken 200 years to establish.

[joeybee12]

1. I recced it, but obviously the crew beat me to it...

This is really a problem with obama and the dems in general...they seem to stand for nothing.

[riverdale]

26. The Dems are the conservative party

The Repubs are the crazy conservative party.

Those of us anywhere to the left of conservative don't have a party.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Anyone not willing to recognize the media's 30 year role in ruining the "D" party Brand

is dishonest and so that makes Seth Godin - the master of nothing,
and those who would agree with him while adding no other comments
willingly clueless.

[grahamhgreen]

9. It's not the media that left Gitmo open

It's not the media that cut deals with big pharma and big insurance and delivered mandatory private insurance instead of the public option 70+% of Americans wanted.

It's not the media that is refusing to bring the troopps home from the quagmire of Iraqistan.

It's not the media who bailed out the banksters.

It's not the media who is giving a tax cut to the richest Americans.

[FrenchieCat]

14. The media influences everything....including manipulation of public opinion

while omitting whatever they choose.

It is the media that cheered us into Iraq,

It is the media that allowed the banksters scheme to go unquestioned till it exploded,

and it is the media who helped George Bush get into office, as well as the media
that enabled George Bush to pass his tax cuts, as they now currently scheming via
colusion on how to make sure those tax cuts stay in place permanently,
as they have skin in that game....

and it is with help from the media that health care reform was allowed to be demonized,
going way back to the Clinton era.

You ignoring those hard truths in order to defend the media's role in all things political;
well, that's priceless.

[catgirl]

16. We're making money from the bailout

and it was Bushes bailout. Where have you been?

Giving a tax cut to the richest americans? They got the tax cut years ago. You need to get informed before
posting BS like this.

[MrsCorleone]

25. Have to agree with Frenchie and catgirl here.

You need to get better informed.

[TheWraith]

44. Excuse me, but cut the bullshit. The Democrats didn't do those things either.

You're repeating bullshit right-wing spin that it was somehow Obama who was solely responsible for TARP, not to mention the lies that we're not ending the wars, and that Obama hasn't spent the last two years saying the tax cuts for the ultra wealthy need to go.

I'll give you the item about Gitmo. The Dems backstabbed Obama in voting with the Reps to prohibit funding for a shutdown.

[grahamhgreen]

59. Excuses. The fact remains that Obama has failed to "build the most predictable, emotional experience

you can among those that care about you."

Instead - he has built it for those who care about the party the least.

No one knows what we stand for. Do you?

[Greyhound]

28. Absolutely beside the point. Meaningless yet distracting rhetoric.

The piece has nothing to do with the M$M's distortions and lies, rather the strategies that work to promote or destroy a brand.

[bobbolink]

37. Quick! Look over there!

It gets tiresome, no matter *which* side engages the tactic, doesn't it?

:hi:

[Greyhound]

80. You git it.

The cult of personality recognizes nothing beyond that personality.

And that is how dictators come to power.

[Pisces]

67. Spot on.

[sabrina 1]

77. Well I agree with him to an extent.

I know what made me a Democrat rather than a Republican and more and more I have difficulty distinguishing between today's Democratic Party and the Republicans of about ten years ago. The party has moved so far to the right on many issues, the 'Big Tent' idea has brought Reagan Republicans into the party, the DLC wing of the party supports war and big business and is now in control of the party. So the question many Democrats have is, is this the party they thought it was or not?

The only part I don't totally agree with him on is that it is Obama who has changed the brand. However, Obama fits the new brand which is probably why he had so much support within the party. Hillary fits it also so they let them fight it out, I doubt it mattered much who won to those pulling the strings.

[grahamhgreen]

110. Steve Jobs tells Apple fans 'quit whining' we've decided to make OSX just like Windows.

Can you imagine? Apple would never do this - yet this is exactly what Obama is doing.

Not without a lot of help from DLC types, though, I have to admit.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

3. Democratic leadership in general are doing that. With some notable exceptions of course. nt

[xchrom]

4. It's an interesting notion.

Though I think that is running deeper than just
One man - and I think we have to back to Clinton for
It's roots.

[DURHAM D]

6. Everyone knew what Clinton stood for.

How old are you?

CDS is on the rise. The more Obama gets in trouble the more we hear about Clinton. Funny if not so sad.

[AndrewP]

18. +1

[xchrom]

22. All I'm saying is Obama is not Athena - sprung full grown.

There is history that speaks to the way he governs.

Clinton was the first 'centrist' after 12 years of repukes.

It's a conversational milestone.

[RKP5637]

8. Excellent point! I also don't think it all rests on Obama, it's been a trend. n/t

[Winterblues]

31. Right it's all Clinton's fault...I seem to recall hearing that somewhere before..

Like for about eight years of GW Bush*...Now we hear it during Obama's term as well..:shrug: Clinton oversaw the "Greatest Economic Expansion in History" and yet everything is his Fault and nothing is his Credit..

[DURHAM D]

40. Yep - No Peace no Prosperity during those years...

As I said above - as Obama gets in more and more trouble the harder some work to change the subject (or blame) to Clinton.

Sad and obvious. Not to mention juvenile political analysis.

[marmar]

47. "Greatest Economic Expansion in History"

Which we now know was a credit- and bubble-fueled illusion.

[xchrom]

52. No, I'm saying there is nothing new under the sun.

Including the way Obama governs.

If you like the way Obama governs - that's fine.
But he and his admin draw on history -- and Clinton is going to be a strong influence because
He is so recent.

Now I personally don't think the credit/bubble economies are much
To be proud of. Or doma or dadt or glass/steagal.
But you're welcome to see it your way.

[Ganja Ninja]

5. He's not doing it all by himself.

The blue dogs are worse offenders than Obama.

[bobbolink]

39. He's the one in the spotlight, and allowing himself to remain in the spotlight.

There is responsibliity in the role he chose.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

7. The analysis of failed or weakened branding is solid. The assignation of fault is flawed.

The milquetoast reputation is being propagated by a much larger spectrum of players than Obama.

[bigtree]

10. Godin is talking out of his ass

. . . polling doesn't show what he's claiming and he doesn't even attempt to provide any proof of his theory.

That's been typical of most of the strident criticism of our Democratic party. Most liberals still support and identify themselves with the Democratic party, so they must have some idea why.

This is just nonsense.

[grahamhgreen]

15. Godin is only talking about branding in general, I'm the one

connecting the dots to our parties current predicament, and talking out my ass!

[bigtree]

23. ha!

. . . how about including some polling results to 'connect the dots'? I'd be more interested in *your* theory if you can find anything more than empirical evidence that voters don't know what the party stands for.

[me b zola]

27. No, I think it is spot on

Growing up if you asked a person why they were a Democrat, they would have described the Democratic brand: The party of the people, the party that created a social safety net and protections for workers, public education, stood for civil rights and liberties, and a sensible foreign policy that sought diplomacy. This was the brand. This is what every Democrat identified with. How can anybody in good faith say that this is what comes to mind now when they speak about Democrats? Many elected Democrats themselves now run away from these stances and won't articulate a clear ideological view point.

President Obama has been union busting and attacking public education. He created a commission filled with staunch republicans and corporate "Dems" to fix the deficit--and surprise--their recommendations have been to slash spending on social programs rather than to see that the top 1% are not paying their fair share of taxes. Wall Street has been coddled at the expense of Main Street. He never attempted to explain to the public why a Progressive course of action worked during the Depression, and why it is the best--if not the only--way to solve the deep doo-doo that we are in now. Not to be ideological for ideology sake, but because it works and is necessary.

[bigtree]

38. plenty of folks still describe the party as you say they once did (correctly, I might add)

. . . not in this echo chamber, though, I admit.

[Greyhound]

30. More rhetorical diversion. The article is about branding and has nothing to do

with President Obama's polling numbers.

[bigtree]

35. yeah, well the op gave that impression

Still, if you're going to claim that voters don't know what our party represents, you should have more proof than just rhetoric.

[Greyhound]

41. That's funny because, even though I've been a political junkie since I was about 12,

I can't tell you what the Democratic Party represents anymore.

Perhaps you can enlighten us...

[bigtree]

55. I'll borrow the description of a poster above who insists we've lost track of these

"The party of the people, the party that created a social safety net and protections for workers, public education, stood for civil rights and liberties, and a sensible foreign policy that sought diplomacy."

All of these are what voters still expect our party to stand for. We still do. Of course, there's been a hell of a struggle to fulfill these expectations against a republican opposition that does not see government as the instrument for addressing these concerns, needs, and rights. Without that opposition, our party would have realized these ambitions long ago.

Btw, I've been a political junkie since 1967(?) when, one day in nursery school, I heard on the radio that Johnson wasn't running and that Nixon was expected to beat Humphrey. I started crying because no one bothered to pay it any attention and I got stood in the corner. My dad bought me a Humphrey button as big as my face . . .

[grahamhgreen]

69. Ha! I got in trouble for scrawling HHH on my

desk in grade school!

Anyway,

"The party of the people, the party that created a social safety net and protections for workers, public education, stood for civil rights and liberties, and a sensible foreign policy that sought diplomacy."

Obama is giving ground on all of these.

[Greyhound]

74. Nope not seeing it. This party has repeatedly pursued and enacted legislation

directly counter to everything you named over the last 25 years.

I know you would like to believe they stand for such things, or perhaps more importantly, that you can convince others of this, but the evidence says otherwise.

[bigtree]

75. the Democratic Party still remains the most effective legislative vehicle

. . . for advancing progressive concerns and initiatives into action or law. We have managed to advance some, you should realize. The fact that we haven't accomplished more or have slid backward in areas doesn't change that fact.

The key to making the party more effective in advancing these progressive issues is to keep pressing to elect a progressive majority. The rub in all of that lies in the states and districts which have traditionally resisted progressive candidates, and, are nonetheless, necessary in any effort to elect enough legislators to achieve a generic majority.

Simply put, there really isn't any one of the ideological factions that make up our Democratic coalition that can manage enough support to achieve a majority on their own; thus, we're left with a muddled, but mostly liberal Democratic membership. We do what we can, and, we do a lot of good. I'm sorry you don't recognize that.

[Greyhound]

78. When "the most effective legislative vehicle" has been completely ineffective for a generation and

shows no sign of changing its path in the face of social literal disintegration even as it is completely abandoned by its "leaders", it can no longer lay claim to standing for anything beyond a desire to gain and hold power.

Your pronouncement of Democratic liberalism, when speaking of the party, is BS on its face.

[bigtree]

84. 'completely ineffective' isn't accurate at all

that's certainly 'bs on it's face'

I don't know what group or organization you support, but they can't legislate from the street. I only see two major parties. There isn't anything more ineffective than just yammering from outside of the legislature. For any movement to be effective, it must have a legislative goal and a means to achieve it. That doesn't guarantee success, but it's a far sight more effective than just throwing stones from whatever particular political corner you are standing on.

[Greyhound]

85. Completely ineffective is accurate. We have fewer rights, fewer protections,

lower pay, successive governments that refuse to enforce the law, thrown millions of people out of work, hope, and off assistance, etc., etc., ad infinitum...

They have done nothing to move this nation forward, conversely they have contributed to its continued disintegration.

As this exchange has clearly demonstrated you have no argument, so here's another reply to kick the thread and give you another opportunity to side-step the issue.

[bigtree]

87. oh, you've just shown a difference of opinion, that's all

. . . nothing earth-shattering in citing economic pressures and fortunes which have risen and fallen in my lifetime; or corruption in government. Some things change, some stay the same. We've done some good, some things not so good. I won't bother to cite any of the progress we've made, because it's not so hard to find if you look with more objectiveness than focusing on all of the negative influences and perpetual challenges with your jaundiced eye.

[Greyhound]

92. And there it is

[Tesha]

122. Polling also shows that the majority of people don't know who they just elected.

You'll grasp at any straw.

For years, right here at DU, I've been making the same claim
as is being made in the OP. I don't just blame Obama, but there's
no question that conservative Democrats have left the electorate
with no idea whatsoever what Democrats stand for.

Even I can't tell you what the Party (as a whole) stands for
anymore. Individual politicians, yes; the Party as a whole, no.

Tesha

[bigwillq]

11. You have to place the blame on more than just Obama.

I think the brand has been diluted for years.

[grahamhgreen]

60. I agree.

[me b zola]

12. I think that the neo-libs/corporatists had already laid the ground work

...and Obama came in a put the final nail in the coffin.

[still_one]

13. The Democrats long before obama started ruining the Democratic brand. It is nice to have a scape

goat, but was this same criticism occurring under Bill Clinton, or to many of the Democrats in Congress who were too comfortable, and stopped fighting for Democratic values?

This did not happen overnight, it was years in the making. Johnson was the last Democrat to push an exclusive Democratic agenda

[nofurylike]

17. twice the work, twice as well, for half the credit. unrec. nt

[JoePhilly]

45. +1000

Should be obvious.

[nofurylike]

89. i agree! thank you very much, JoePhilly! nt

[grahamhgreen]

95. What does Obama stand for?

[Poboy]

101. Good question. He doesn't stand for anything!

[Bluenorthwest]

19. He and Kaine and many others are wreckless with the Party

build for them by others. Careless.

[TexasObserver]

20. No.

Did Bush ruin the GOP brand?

The president has problems that are based primarily upon the lack of jobs. He foolishly failed to make JOBS JOBS JOBS the focus of his first two years. He still seems to lack focus that JOBS are all that really matter to voters. The deficit? That's one of those admirable goals that no one really cares about on election day, except as a talking point.

If he wants to win in 2012, he'll have to get his head around JOBS, and stop kidding himself that anything else will get him there.

[grahamhgreen]

43. No, Bush was on point with what the Rebub brand is all about:

pro-rich, war, tax cuts, corporation, privatization, outsourcing
anti-union, civil liberties, abortion, etc.

On point all the time.

[TexasObserver]

62. The answer to the question in your OP title is "NO."

Obama is not ruining the Democratic brand, as I noted.

[Cassandra]

21. I voted for President Obama and was proud to do it.

Now it seems I voted for President Not-McCain; could be a lot worse but not as good as I was expecting.

[musiclawyer]

24. There's a bit of truth in what everyone is saying here.

Clinton triangulation is alive and well.
POTUS saw to that
POTUS picked his key advisers and key staff--pretty awful selection with few exceptions


If POTUS does tarp with real strings attached, and made wall street pay right at the get go; and had he started out with single payer to negotiate down to a public option; and simply ended DADT, and closed Guantanamo back in 2009 ( even if the same war decisions are made), the Dems don't lose the House.

But equally as important, in the summer of 2009, when the teabaggers were all nuts and the media was running with it. POTUS could have come out strong and essentially called out the astroturf nature of it, and called out the media. He did not. If you are POTUS and dont use the power of the office to check an unchecked media, NOV 2 is what you get. The media pushback is a necessary tool in the Democratic brand that is underutilized.

Now we have citizens united. What is the Dem brand about? Are dems simply gonna go fetal position or are they going to come out and say what's going to happen before it happens (shape the narrative) i.e. "the GOP will bank on its billionaires and multinational companies, but we will bank on people and institutions worldwide that wish to go forwards and not backward in time. We will outspend them, and when we win, we will gut citizens united because it is a menace to democracy". Do you think Obama has the guts to say this? That would be leadership. That would be serving the brand immensley. Obama is a great campaigner. But his record of leadership and solidifying the brand is tepid, weak, shitty... whatever word you want to use. And I like the guy.

[Uncle Joe]

54. I agree on all counts. n/t

[Poll_Blind]

65. +1

PB

[grahamhgreen]

68. +1

[laughingliberal]

29. K & R nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

32. Yes, Barack Obama has SINGLE HANDEDLY ruined the Democratic Party!

BULLSHIT!!!

For nearly 30 years, the Republican Party has moved to the right and redefined the Center.

Jimmy Carter was very conservative, contrary to what most people think. He began the move to the political Center.

Al Gore, the Father of the Democratic Leadership Council continued to move the ball forward.

Bill Clinton--The best Democratic Republican president ever--redefined the Democratic Party further, calling it the "Third Way," and introduced the world to the art of TRIANGULATION!

Al Gore, Bill Clinton, HIllary Clinton...all members of the Democratic Leadership Council.

To suggest that somehow Barack Obama is responsible for rebranding the party is ludicrous, not to mention historically WRONG!!

[musiclawyer]

42. In response

"To suggest that somehow Barack Obama is responsible for rebranding the party is ludicrous, not to mention historically WRONG!!"

No one is saying is the sole reason of the branding problem.
But he was in a position to prevent the skid from even starting and to stop the skid and refocus. He has failed thus far. Doesn't mean it's too late. But he is the face of the party. He need to act like a leader, not appear as compromiser/appeaser. He can point out that the center has moved way right and he will not move with the goalposts. This is within his control. A good start would be the tax break for 520K and below. Force a stand alone vote. Doesn't matter if it might lose. The stupid swing voters will remember. That is leadership. We shall see.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

58. I'm sorry, but there are many posted on this thread who are suggesting that it is Obama

I find it very interesting, too, seeing as though we've have conservative Democratic presidents in the past who capitulated to the Republicans 10 times over. The reason why many of us aren't holding Clinton accountable for triangulation is because the economy turned around. But that doesn't negate the policies, many of which are still in effect today, that Bill Clinton championed that are anything but progressive.

Listen, I like Bill Clinton a lot. I don't like his policies. And at this time in his presidency, Bill was faced with worse circumstances than Obama. There may be a lot of people here on DU who are too young to remember Carter's or Clinton's presidency, but they were anything but progressive and were accused of being "wimpy" and of capitulation, the same accusations leveled at Obama.

The problem now is that we have the Internet and access to information...

Let's wait and see what Obama does. Let's see if he finally wakes up and fights back because right now he's in big trouble.

[FiveGoodMen]

33. Completely.

[Jim Sagle]

34. Godin's right. Those who deny it are grasping at straws.

[marmar]

36. All due respect, but the Democratic Party "brand" had been sinking long before Obama

nt

[durkermaker]

46. All free-trade DLC corporatist dems are, it's not just Obama

he didnt invent this

[grahamhgreen]

48. If not, then what is the party brand? What do we stand for?

[treestar]

49. "Brand?"

A party is nothing but a sales item? To be sold to the voters?

Find a new brand that you like then, and buy it.

[grahamhgreen]

50. It's really not about brand - it's about standing for something. What is it the party stands for?

[durkermaker]

51. I used to play fake 'fetch' with the neighbor's dumb dog

throw my arm with a stick, but not let go of the stick

the dog would run far, and look for the stick

then i'd call him back, and do it again

he'd run again, but a little less far each time

finally, he'd just stand there and glare at me, a look that said 'I'm a fool, but you're a jerk and i no longer trust you' dog really wasnt that stupid in the end

you can only call 'change' do many times when in fact it's the same old you know what, before people fianlly catch on, just like that dumb dog

[Raksha]

79. Very good analogy! I guess that dog wasn't THAT dumb after all.

"Fool me once..." and all that good stuff. Or twice, or even three times, but eventually everyone catches on, even the American voter.

[Iggo]

53. DLC came before the Obama administration. (n/t)

[FiveGoodMen]

66. Still, it's no surprise that the guy whose speeches inspired everyone to hope for change

would be the one everyone looked to for results.

And we looked.

And he wasn't even trying.

In fact, his people were calling us names.

[Greyhound]

83. Yep.

What a waste...

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quinnox]

57. Yes sadly, K & R

President Obama is making the Democratic brand a symbolism of weakness and being wimpy, and the opposite of bold leadership.

If Obama continues to try and appease the republicans by acting like one, voters will elect the real republican instead next time.

Time for Obama to get a back bone and say "NO WAY IN HELL!" to the disgusting GOP.

[Romulox]

61. Triangulation (as practiced by Clinton, Obama) gives credence to one's opponent's frames

In other words, Democrats can win big business by shilling for "free trade", but doing so gives credence to rightwing ideology, and therefore to Democrats' opponents.

[Forkboy]

63. I'd say the Party has done a fine job of that itself over the last 10 years.

[fascisthunter]

64. He's not the Only One... he's had plenty of help

[eridani]

70. No. Clinton and the DLC beat him to it by many years n/t

[Safetykitten]

71. I don't know how you can even make that connection.

[grahamhgreen]

72. Then answer this

what does our brand mean or do?

[pgodbold]

73. K & R nt

[asdjrocky]

76. Not just Obama, but about 90% of elected Dems.

The country hasn't gone to the right, the two BS political parties have.

[BlueIris]

81. I'm not going to go there.

Except to post that by the time this thing is over, damage to the brand will be the least of our problems.

[LawnLover]

82. What brand?

Does the Democratic party have a brand? It seems to have been absent in the last ten years.

[grahamhgreen]

88. Exactly. "Hope and Change" is a slogan, not our brand; "Think Different" is Apples

Slogan, but their brand is their actual products that do what the slogan implies.

When you deliver legislation that is re-packaged Republican ideas, you have no alternative meaning, no power.

[AnArmyVeteran]

86. I've decided to run for office. I'm getting a yellow streak painted on my back now.

Even though republicans are corrupt, fraudulent, dishonest, cold blooded and evil, they AREN'T cowards. Their base loves their kick ass attitudes. But our party has just three officeholders with courage. Once my yellow stripe is painted on my back you won't be able to tell the difference between me and 99.9% of democratic 'leaders'.

[ForeignSpectator]

90. Hey interesting perspective...

What I remember from some marketing lectures I took, each brand needs a "positioning", something they
stand for, in the customers' perception. Like an image or what is called expectation in your post.

That positioning has to be unique, it has to DIFFERENTIATE your brand from the others.

The more you copy another brand's positioning the more your brand loses value. Customers will perceive
the brand originally having that positioning as strong and the copying brand as weak. And they will
buy...the original.

That is why from a marketing POV, "conservative democrats" is a terrible idea, no differentiation
from the repubs. And what gets "bought" is the original...

[grahamhgreen]

93. Exactly! "Steve Jobs calls Apple fans f*ckin retarded!"

And besides trying to get the people who love our brand excited about it, he continually dilutes it by making it even more like brand x (Repubs), & by slighting those that are the core viral sellers of our brand (people with Otaku, Godin would say).

This is like trying to sell Apple computers by telling apple fans they are f*ckin retarded, and don't worry, we will makes Apples more like Windows to attract Window users!

[AnArmyVeteran]

96. This is a good thread and I love your take on it. Very true...

[The Uncola]

91. I almost would say that Obama ..

...barely qualifies to be called a Democrat.

[gulliver]

94. Dem crybabies hurt the Dem brand more than anything else.

There is nothing like a tiny minority of vocal, intellectually weak, me-firsters to spoil a brand. The vast majority of liberals are reasonably happy with Obama and only wish that his detractors on the left would stop hobbling his efforts. We accomplished a lot under Obama, as everyone with any sense knows. What we didn't accomplish I blame mostly on the Republican obstruction and Dem crybabies.

The problem with the Dem team is that the kids who are really lousy players (who couldn't politic their way into a single term as assistant town dog catcher) think they should be given the ball. If our team played as a team, kept their game face on, and let the best players play their positions without interference and grumbling, we would have a great team and a great brand.

On edit: Added Republicans.

[grahamhgreen]

97. Name calling is your best argument? Can you imagine any company calling their

biggest fans names, instead of trying to deliver the products the base was passionately calling for?

It will not work to create a viable party. Will it?

[gulliver]

100. Branding is about image.

There is no one in the tiny, vocal minority that mislabels itself the base whose picture or name you would want on a can of peaches--at least not if you wanted to sell peaches. The real "base" is the people who give more to the party than they take from it. The base is the people who nurture and magnify the strength of the party. Some people contribute vegetables and meat to the "stone soup." Others just put in more stones. Most of the Dem detractors are the latter. They bring nothing to the table but their bowls.

The Dem Party, including Obama, did a terrific job delivering product to the consumer. Less was delivered than needed, but the shortfall was the responsibility of the Republicans and the Dem crybabies (the shoe, unfortunately, fitting like handmade).

[grahamhgreen]

102. Name calling and parables? You have no meat here!

The policies positions have been junk.

Instead of real HCR, we got mandatory private insurance that will funnel trillions to big insurance that they are using to defeat what meager reforms are in the bill

We need to get out of Iraqistan - still there.

We need to get out of the free trade agreements and bring jobs back - not even mentioned again after the campaign.

We need to tax the rich - now giving them tax breaks.


You can not build Apple by selling Microsoft.

[Blue_Tires]

98. If Obama is guilty of brand erosion, then so are 95% of congressional dems and

probably a third of DU...

[grahamhgreen]

99. Can you imagine if Coca-Cola had responded to the outcry over "New Coke" by telling Coke fans to

stop whining and like it?

This next phase of the party will be crucial, if they continue to make us more like the Repubs, there will be no brand identity, and the party will suffer further.

The general public's reaction to the new Democratic Party (the one that caves in to Republicans and corporate interests) has been a major marketing failure.

We need to respond by giving the public "Democratic Party Classic". The ONLY WAY out is to cater to the base first, and the outliers second.

Every marketer knows this.


"New Coke is the reformulation of Coca-Cola introduced in 1985 by The Coca-Cola Company to replace the original formula of its flagship soft drink, Coca-Cola (also called Coke). Properly speaking, New Coke had no separate name of its own, but was simply known as "the new taste of Coca-Cola" until 1992 when it was renamed Coca-Cola II.

The American public's reaction to the change was poor, and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales, leading to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy.<1>" - Wikipedia

[Poll_Blind]

103. +1

PB

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. "Democratic party classic" +1

[nashville_brook]

106. [phone]

[leftstreet]

111. +1

Democratic Party Classic !!

[ProSense]

112. Flawed analogy

The President enjoys overwhelming support among Democrats.

You're assuming that packaging is substance. Even then, the President still enjoys the support of the majority of Democrats.

The noise machine would have people believe that fighting Republicans is the only thing that matters to most Democrats. It isn't. Sure, everyone wants Democrats to stand on principle, but most Democrats also want progress.

Long after the noise subsides, this President will be remember for significantly advancing and enhancing the Democratic agenda. (Be sure to read the entire thread)

[leftstreet]

113. Wait. You're saying progress means compromising principles?

:shrug:

[truedelphi]

115. Oh but if only we had achieved some real progress. n/t

[ProSense]

116. No,

"Sure, everyone wants Democrats to stand on principle, but most Democrats also want progress."

[grahamhgreen]

117. If the President doesn't realize he's pissed off his base yet, wait til 2012.

We need the Democratic Party Classic of FDR.

[ProSense]

118. Maybe by then

someone will challenge him?

Some of the expressions aren't disappointment, they're hate. Nothing he can do about that.

Disappointment will heal with improving economic conditions, hate, not so much.

[grahamhgreen]

119. It should be the corporatists, ne-cons, and war profiteers that are expressing hate for him,

not his own party. Just like they expressed their hatred for FDR.

"“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. ... Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me. And I welcome their hatred!" - FDR



Almost everything you list is good for the corporate interests, very few things are good for Americans.


His branding is off base, it's derailing his legacy, but I'm sure it will endear him to the filthy rich.

[craigmatic]

105. No he's ruining his own brand with his base voters by doing those things.

All the volunteers from 08 and the college kids don't like that.

[ecstatic]

107. Thanks for reminding me of why I've slowed down on visiting DU

:puke:

[grahamhgreen]

108. Well, enjoy your time at Free Republic!

[ecstatic]

114. Maybe you should. You would fit in well there nt

[DirkGently]

109. This is an important point, whichever side of the "Obama fence" you occupy.

Fairly or not, Democrats are losing the perception that they stand for the middle and working classes and against wealthy interests. If people want to support coporations, the vote Republican -- they know what they're getting. For those who want something else, the Democratic Party *should* be the obvious choice.

That's WHY you "draw a line" over tax cuts for the wealthy, for example. The Democratic brand is becoming diluted. This beltway logic that Americans can't stomach liberalism, and that every setback justifies another step to the right, are adopting "New Coke" strategy doomed to failure.

No one is going to vote for center-right politicians bearing a Democratic label. People like their conservatism in heavy syrup here. If you want to compete, you have to OFFER SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

This administration CAN do that, if it chooses.

[lumberjack_jeff]

120. Worse. He's conflating his own brand with that of the party.

[grahamhgreen]

121. Shocking, but true! Democratic presidents are supposed to raise taxes on the wealthy,

but brand Obama will cut them.