Messaging again: Democrats need to have positive messages, too.

 Trump has spent the first seven weeks promoting unpopular public policies. He is "underwater" in the polls on nearly all of his initiatives.  Democrats are still floundering, with many voices attacking with less than successful messaging, diffused and uncoordinated.  Voters know what Democrats are against but not what they are for.   Repeating the Biden administration's gains and losses is fair game but not central to a message. It may fuel buyers' remorse but humans do not like to admit they were wrong. Instead, look to the future and see what you will do better than what the GOP, Trump, and Musk are doing now.The Trump negatives need to be taken and reshaped into pushbacks that are positives with a focus on themes that affect both red and blue partisans, such as cost of living, corruption, and improving government services.  The public are consumers of government services; treat them like customers. Seeking efficiency is the goal. It is not the same as replacing government with deficiencies or no service at all. Trump is promoting corruption; we should restore independent watchdogs. Fear and favor have been replaced by adhering to the rule of law; we should abide by the rule of law; Trump promised to reduce your cost of living, and instead, he wants to increase your costs..Let's get rid of tariff wars.  Corrruption must not be tolerated and the rule of law is the most fair system for all. Restore watchdogs and respect the rule of law.  On Ukraine: Democrats support rule by the people  system we call Democracy, not rule over the people by a strong  man and tyrant, at home and abroad 

 Timing is everything: The time clock has not started running on the 2026 midterms, but Trump has given Democrats the gifts of economic downturns, billionaires running amock, and more. Guardrails against corruption have been removed. The power belongs to the ones with the money.  However, the messages I have been hearing are still speculative and not yet felt by the voters.  Trump's gift to Democrats should not be wasted when voters still do not feel the pain.  The sympathy should be shifted to the voters who lose services they need for their health and financial well-being, not just for the hardships facing those who lost their government jobs. Voters will need to feel the pain of chainsaw Musk before it is truly an effective approach. The sky will be falling sounds like so much political oratory and does not mean much until shards hit them in the head.  I told you so, we warned you, is not enough of a message.

Calling out the other side for gaslighting needs more than just calling something that is obfuscating.  Gaslighting...standard procedure for many in politics, is the overuse of "gas lighting", taken from a movie where the victim is confused into inaction due to slow realization as gaslights are dimmed.

What it means in political propaganda is that a defense against an attack, more polite than just calling out, is a lie, or twisted information, or diversions, or deflections, geared to confuse the public. It is a shorthand for describing in detail..However, it is used so much that it is irritating and does not really say specifically what is being done that is so bad. It needs a descriptor added to it.I prefer the words: X is trying to fool or confuse you(lie to you, twist into, divert to another topic) with a short sentence following.

 

Fleshing out some of this:

On the cost of living, the impact of tariffs has not yet been felt, but that may be the issue that determines the 2026 midterms.  The Trump administration has not set lowering the cost of groceries and living expenses as a priority or even is it a goal anymore. On the cost of living, the impact of tariffs has not yet been felt, but that may be the issue that determines the 2026 midterms. A pushback plank: Get rid of the trade wars and tariffs. 

On corruption: restore independent watch dogs, I G's, ethics requirements and oppose conflict of interests. Restore the protection of whistle blowers. https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2025/02/when-it-comes-to-corruption-trump-is.html         https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-only-whistleblowers-left-is-free.html

Instead of ust criticizingTrump's obsession with kneecapping Zelensky and his bromance with Putin, Democrats could stand for a positive, such as a pledge to support Ukraine to remain independent of Russia, restore the mid-Atlantic alliances with our friends (we know the difference between friends and enemies)

On government efficiency: Deficiency is not efficiency, Musk. Making the government more deficient is not the same as making it deficient. The focus should be on providing improved customer service for programs that American taxpayers support and need: veterans services and making them more efficient in their delivery instead of eliminating or limiting their services, consumer and environmental protections, affordable access to health care including Medicare and Medicaid, and social security.  Merit should be rewarded and be the standard for hiring instead of loyalty to Trump and the size of political contributions.  3/13/25  Two federal judges ruled that probationary personnel fired by DOGE and OPM are to be rehired. Left are those who were fired who were not probationary. The impact on the ability of these agencies to function is yet to be determined.  Making government efficient is not the same as making government deficient.  The chainsaw massacre of government services continues.

On justice: the goal is fairness for all. It is not an instrument of disciplining those not loyal to Trump or his allies.  It is not an instrument to promote one race over any other or to carry out the agenda of any one religion or ideology, or to promote fear and favor.  Restore freedom of the press and speech, free of retribution and revenge from the all-powerful president.

On budget and deficit: The standard needs to include payfors for any new programs either to raise taxes or provide offsets elsewhere to expenditures. Oppose tax cuts for the very rich. They never have paid back what they cost the treasury in loss of income. 

On mass firings of government employees, the Trump administration lost a big one and  got caught lying about the reason employees were fired: There is a process to firing workers and we should adhere to that process. Trump administration ordered to reinstate tens of thousands of fired probationary workers

Privatization of "entitlements" is not a good thing for ordinary citizens and so far no one has made much of an issue of that. The government is for the taxpayers who voted for the services and need them. Government services should not be for those who seek profit. Government services should not be private sector profit centers. Do not privatize; instead, improve their functions. Privatization just puts more money in billionaires' pockets who want to take a cut of investing your money as they invest it in the casino of Wall Street or in turning access provided by machines they supply instead of someone on the other end of the phone for those who are either too young or older computer illiterates. Those programs are for the public benefit, not for the benefit of profit-seeking businesses who only see you as a profit center. People sought these government programs because the private sector had failed them in the first place. 

Asking the right questions is also an approach. The polls of public opinion and the courts are turning against the Trump initiatives in the first 7 weeks of the administration. 3/13/25 - Voters' Ratings On Economy And Trump Dip, Trade And Russia - Ukraine War Weigh On Trump's Numbers, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Majority Disapprove Of Trump's Handling Of Zelensky Meeting | Quinnipiac University Poll The response from Trump and his supporters is yes, it will be a little rocky for a while, but you will like what it will be when we are done. What is that? Who will benefit? Who is "you".How will we get there with the crises manufactured by Trump himself and Musk, who thinks making government services more deficient is the same as making them more efficient.

An answer: It will not be good for those who hoped grocery prices would be lowered and who benefit from continued affordable access to healthcare or who hope interest rates will fall enough they can buy a home. The only people who will like what is happening are the very rich and billionaires who want no constraints on their greed to become richer or to privatize every government service so they can get a cut of the taxpayer-funded administration. Those in need of such services as Medicare, Social Security, and Medicare to make ends meet should not be treated as a profit center for billionaires. They do not feel your pain or walk in your shoes (common definitions of empathy). In fact, some billionaires even view empathy as a weakness. Elon Musk wants to save Western civilization from empathy | CNN Politics

Tariffs, recession fears: Americans lose confidence in the economy

Poll shows strong disapproval of Musk cost-cutting as US agencies end leases | US news | The Guardian

GOP plan to privatize Medicare depends on a non existent free market system

One of the most indelible impressions I had attending town halls in the 2008 presidential campaign was the look of fear and anger on the faces of some waiving signs:” Do not let the government take away my Medicare”. Funny: Medicare is a government program.  In 2010 the under  55 crowd ought to be waiving signs that read: “do not let the Republicans take away my Medicare”.

 The fear that “Obamacare” would have taken $400 billion from the Medicare program became an issue exploited by the GOP who beat the drums of deceptive talking points to raise the fear levels   every chance they had. The Democrats responded, meekly and weakly, that the $400 billion did not change the benefits seniors received, it only ended the 13% markup private insurers charged the government to administer a Medicare on the government’s behalf.  The amount of money saved by cutting the administrative costs of Medicare, intense prosecution of frau d and abuse funded in the health reform law and greater use of home health care and other more efficient use of senior care funding, would  help save  billions over 10 years and trillions later.

 So important was the savings to Medicare afforded by health care reform law, that the Simpson Bowles debt commission concluded that reform be retained to help cut the deficit in the future.   The Republicans, of course, have not given up their attempt to defund or cripple “Obamacare”. Neither have private insurers and they are using their muscle:   Per www.opensecrets.org  health insurers spent over $21 million on lobbyists in 2010.

In the name of deficit reduction, the Republicans last week repackaged their 40 year old platform of privatizing Medicare with a proposal to give seniors vouchers to buy private insurance.   This privatization scheme is based upon a theory that   the insurers would compete for your voucher, driving down costs.  To head off voter outrage, seniors over 55 would see no change. Only their children and grandchildren would be shortchanged in the name of reducing the debt burden..

  The problem with the free market theory is that here is little free market in health insurance.  In fact, there is an oligopoly …a few companies in the market who are free to set prices and terms of coverage among themselves and carve out markets. .  What it means for seniors is that, for example, if you have a choice of between three similar plans.  Without real competition, insurers are free to provide customers with a choice of three with the highest price and lowest benefits   agreed upon among the insurers.

What?  Isn’t that illegal? No.  Health insurers are exempted from antitrust laws.     Ok, you say, and then we will go to another state and buy our insurance (the same argument was used to provide a very insufficient substitute for “Obamacare”).  The problem is that if you go to a neighboring state to avoid the high cost of an insurer like Blue Cross, Blue Shield, or United Health Care, you have a great chance of having to choose  between a Blue Cross/Blue Shield, United Health Care plan or their subsidiaries in that state as well. Vouchers change nothing if the market is not free.   

  There is also no assurance that a voucher would be sufficiently subsidized to give seniors the ability to afford a policy that would offer benefits similar to the current ones.    The amount of those subsidies is critical since insurance policies issued just for seniors would be very expensive. Senior care costs most because it covers deteriorating health. 

                The greatest beneficiaries of GOP policies would be the private insurers, who would be freed to charge an administrative markup, to set anti-competitive prices, and limit care to increase their profit margins. Without  free market competition there is nothing in the GOP plan to control costs except by reducing subsidies.   Without addressing these realities, those younger than 55 would either be the biggest losers or the deficit would still be their problem.
    Data on the lack of competition in the health insurance industry is from a study released in Feb 2010 conducted by the American Medical Association.  From an AMA press release:

AMA Study Shows Competition Disappearing in the Health Insurance Industry

For immediate release:
Feb. 23, 2010
CHICAGO – Competition in the health insurance industry is disappearing with more markets across the country dominated by one or two insurers, according to the American Medical Association’s newly released edition of Competition in Health Insurance:  A Comprehensive Study of U.S. Markets.
In 24 of the 43 states reported in the new AMA report, the two largest insurers had a combined market share of 70 percent or more.  Last year, just 18 of 42 states had two insurers with a combined market share of 70 percent or more.
“The near total collapse of competitive and dynamic health insurance markets has not helped patients,” said AMA President J. James Rohack, M.D. “As demonstrated by proposed rate hikes in California and other states, health insurers have not shown greater efficiency and lower health care costs. Instead, patient premiums, deductibles and co-payments have soared without an increase in benefits in these increasingly consolidated markets.”
The new AMA study analyzed 43 states and 313 metropolitan markets against an index used by federal regulators for measuring market concentration. Markets that rate “highly concentrated” according to the federal index are areas of the country where insurer consolidation may have harmful effects on patients, physicians, employers and the economy.
By reviewing enrollments in private health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and preferred provider organizations (PPOs), the new AMA study found:

• Ninety-nine percent of metropolitan markets are “highly concentrated” according to federal merger guidelines (up from 94 percent metropolitan markets the year before).
• In 54 percent of metropolitan markets, at least one insurer had a market share of 50 percent or greater (up from 40 percent of metropolitan markets the year before).
• In 92 percent of the metropolitan markets, at least one insurers had a market share of 30 percent or greater (up from 89 percent of metropolitan markets the year before).

“An absence of competition in health insurance markets is clearly not in the best economic interest of patients,” said Dr. Rohack. “The AMA has urged the Department of Justice (DOJ) and state agencies to more aggressively enforce antitrust laws that prohibit harmful mergers.”
To restore a competitive balance to health insurance markets, the AMA has also urged the DOJ to consider the following steps:

• Perform a retrospective study of health insurance mergers similar to that performed by the Federal Trade Commission on hospital mergers;
• Commission new research to identify causes and consequences of health insurer market power; and
• Create a system for predicting the effects health insurer mergers will have on consumer and provider markets.

Competition in Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Study of U.S. Markets is free to AMA members. Non-members can purchase the study for $150. To order the study, please visit the AMA Bookstore online, or call (800) 621-8335 and mention AMA Bookstore item number OP427109.