There is an important race in Wisconsin for the State Supreme Court. A contribution to Susan Crawford the democratic candidate, is something one can do. The election will decide who controls Wisconsin's Supreme Court and that will have an effect on many things.
Great piece, Kathleen. Strategy is all important to me. Some of the writers I follow, like Charlie Sykes, just keep telling me about the awful things Trump 2.O is doing. If there is no mention of what can be done about it, I don't spend time reading it. So I'm with you all the way.
It sounds like you’re looking for more than just outrage—you want a plan, a way forward. That makes sense. What kind of strategic thinking do you find most useful? Are you looking for political tactics, grassroots organizing ideas, messaging strategies, or something else?
All of it. Here's a messaging strategy from author Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic a week ago on what the Dems should do: " . . . pursue a relentless, strategic, and thematic campaign branding Trump as America’s most corrupt president. Almost every development could provide fodder for such attacks, which would connect corruption not with generalities like the rule of law but with kitchen-table issues. Higher prices? Crony capitalism! Cuts to popular programs? Payoffs for Trump’s fat-cat clients! Tax cuts? A greedy raid on Social Security!".
Soon after the election, Dem strategist Dan Pfeiffer said it was the Dem brand that lost. And that brand is they don't care about people in the working class. As Trump's best ad put it, Kamala cares about they/them. Trump cares about you.
James Carville says dump the indentitarianism. It's not a winning strategy.
It sounds like you're analyzing different Democratic messaging strategies and how they relate to Trump’s vulnerabilities, the working-class vote, and broader electoral dynamics. The lawsuits are clearly a major factor too.
Rauch’s argument—relentlessly branding Trump as corrupt and tying it to kitchen-table issues—makes sense. But it also runs into the challenge of media saturation. Voters have heard about Trump’s corruption for years, yet he remains competitive. The trick would be making it feel new and personal in a way that breaks through.
Pfeiffer and Carville are pointing to a deeper issue: the Democratic brand problem. If voters see Democrats as out-of-touch elites, no amount of anti-Trump messaging will save them. That’s why Trump’s “Kamala cares about they/them. Trump cares about you” ad was effective—it plays into a perception that Democrats focus more on niche cultural issues than on working-class concerns. Carville’s point is that identity politics alienates voters who feel left behind.
So, the big question: Can Democrats focus on corruption and rebrand themselves as the party of the working class? And do the lawsuits help or hurt that case?
Rauch addressed media saturation. I think it is persuasive:
"The best objection to this approach (perhaps the only objection, at this point) is that the corruption charge won’t stick against Trump. After all, the public has been hearing about his corruption for years and has priced it in or just doesn’t care. Besides, the public believes that all politicians are corrupt anyway.
"But driving a strategic, coordinated message against Trump’s corruption is exactly what the opposition has not done. Instead, it has reacted to whatever is in the day’s news. By responding to daily fire drills and running in circles, it has failed to drive any message at all.
"Also, it is not quite true that the public already knows Trump is corrupt and doesn’t care. Rather, because he seems so unfiltered, he benefits from a perception that he is authentic in a way that other politicians are not, and because he infuriates elites, he enjoys a reputation for being on the side of the common person. Breaking those perceptions can determine whether his approval rating is above 50 percent or below 40 percent, and politically speaking, that is all the difference in the world."
As I've said elsewhere, the target for the messaging is NOT MAGA. It's the swing voters in the swing states who swung from Biden in 2O2O to Trump in 2O24. I don't have the data to back this up, but I suspect they comprise about 1O% of the electorate.
If it's the right message AND THE RIGHT MESSENGER!, that could cut into his approval. That would be the goal.
Agree THE question is can the Dems do it? I don't know. Carville says if the Identitarian Left wants the Dems to win elections, they should quiet themselves. I wholeheartedly agree. What is more important to them? Being vocal about their cause and getting attention in the media or winning elections?
I also don't know if the lawsuits, the ones he loses, help.
fact, media saturation works both ways: while constant exposure can desensitize the public, a well-coordinated and strategic narrative can also reinforce and reshape public perception. The assumption that voters have already ‘priced in’ Trump’s corruption may underestimate the power of sustained, focused messaging. If the opposition effectively links his corruption to tangible consequences—economic impact, threats to democracy, or personal stakes for voters—it could break through the noise and shift opinions, even among those who have been indifferent so far."
That argument makes sense. Do you think media saturation makes people numb to political scandals, or can the right framing still change minds?
Thanks, Kathleen, for keeping us in the loop. I would most prefer to read about what Trump is most likely to do with a negative Supreme Court decision, because I think that the most important decisions hinge on this question. If Trump bows to the courts, a semblance of order will continue. If Trump defies the Supreme Court, we are well and truly in the realm of chaos.
It felt a bit unsettling reading the first few paragraphs, are you my sister? It seems we share the same passion for knowledge and history! FUN!
It seems our siblings are kin too as they remember nothing of what Mom used to share.
BTW, I live in Texas across from a military base and the last couple of days there has been INTENSE and out of the normal time frame activity. My son lives in the burbs of Dallas and has noticed a VERY high helicopter activity. Creeps me out
Number 2 is given. Anything and everything that involves bringing voice to the resistance - to support democracy.
But I am definitely most worried about how $Trump will use the military. As the weather improves, we will be on the streets. We will not be quiet. The crowds will grow larger with every outrage. The Orange Thing won't like the "look" of it. Will he invoke the Insurrection Act? And will there be push back from other authorities. Will the MA National Guard support Gov Healy or the Nazis?
And now that "we" have aligned with North Korea and Russia, what Americans will say "NO!"?
I think Trump will definitely defy the courts. But do we let it stand?? Is this the deal we make with Trump...letting him win...no! If we normalize the chaos he is close to overthrowing OUR government, so no, we do not let it stand!
What do you think of James Carville's NYT article that we should not do anything and wait for the Republicans to implode. I was of that opinion also, until Trump's successful takeover of the DOJ and FBI with loyalists. With the control of the DOJ and FBI, Trump really does not need a base of supporters anymore. Hopefully I am wrong. What are your thoughts?
As the poll is beginning to indicate, your take on what ordinary citizens can do is what we all need right now.
Yep. there's a pretty clear pattern there!
kathleen, we need your voice. it’s real, helpful, interesting, & intelligent. keep on. and TY. 💙
There is an important race in Wisconsin for the State Supreme Court. A contribution to Susan Crawford the democratic candidate, is something one can do. The election will decide who controls Wisconsin's Supreme Court and that will have an effect on many things.
https://www.crawfordforwi.com
Great suggestion! One of the biggest impacts is that a Republican dominated Supreme Court will approve severely gerrymandered legislative districts.
Great piece, Kathleen. Strategy is all important to me. Some of the writers I follow, like Charlie Sykes, just keep telling me about the awful things Trump 2.O is doing. If there is no mention of what can be done about it, I don't spend time reading it. So I'm with you all the way.
It sounds like you’re looking for more than just outrage—you want a plan, a way forward. That makes sense. What kind of strategic thinking do you find most useful? Are you looking for political tactics, grassroots organizing ideas, messaging strategies, or something else?
Part one of a three will be coming out tomorrow morning.
Looking forward to it!
That sounds exciting! What’s it about? A story, a project, a video series?
All of it. Here's a messaging strategy from author Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic a week ago on what the Dems should do: " . . . pursue a relentless, strategic, and thematic campaign branding Trump as America’s most corrupt president. Almost every development could provide fodder for such attacks, which would connect corruption not with generalities like the rule of law but with kitchen-table issues. Higher prices? Crony capitalism! Cuts to popular programs? Payoffs for Trump’s fat-cat clients! Tax cuts? A greedy raid on Social Security!".
Soon after the election, Dem strategist Dan Pfeiffer said it was the Dem brand that lost. And that brand is they don't care about people in the working class. As Trump's best ad put it, Kamala cares about they/them. Trump cares about you.
James Carville says dump the indentitarianism. It's not a winning strategy.
The lawsuits.
It sounds like you're analyzing different Democratic messaging strategies and how they relate to Trump’s vulnerabilities, the working-class vote, and broader electoral dynamics. The lawsuits are clearly a major factor too.
Rauch’s argument—relentlessly branding Trump as corrupt and tying it to kitchen-table issues—makes sense. But it also runs into the challenge of media saturation. Voters have heard about Trump’s corruption for years, yet he remains competitive. The trick would be making it feel new and personal in a way that breaks through.
Pfeiffer and Carville are pointing to a deeper issue: the Democratic brand problem. If voters see Democrats as out-of-touch elites, no amount of anti-Trump messaging will save them. That’s why Trump’s “Kamala cares about they/them. Trump cares about you” ad was effective—it plays into a perception that Democrats focus more on niche cultural issues than on working-class concerns. Carville’s point is that identity politics alienates voters who feel left behind.
So, the big question: Can Democrats focus on corruption and rebrand themselves as the party of the working class? And do the lawsuits help or hurt that case?
Rauch addressed media saturation. I think it is persuasive:
"The best objection to this approach (perhaps the only objection, at this point) is that the corruption charge won’t stick against Trump. After all, the public has been hearing about his corruption for years and has priced it in or just doesn’t care. Besides, the public believes that all politicians are corrupt anyway.
"But driving a strategic, coordinated message against Trump’s corruption is exactly what the opposition has not done. Instead, it has reacted to whatever is in the day’s news. By responding to daily fire drills and running in circles, it has failed to drive any message at all.
"Also, it is not quite true that the public already knows Trump is corrupt and doesn’t care. Rather, because he seems so unfiltered, he benefits from a perception that he is authentic in a way that other politicians are not, and because he infuriates elites, he enjoys a reputation for being on the side of the common person. Breaking those perceptions can determine whether his approval rating is above 50 percent or below 40 percent, and politically speaking, that is all the difference in the world."
As I've said elsewhere, the target for the messaging is NOT MAGA. It's the swing voters in the swing states who swung from Biden in 2O2O to Trump in 2O24. I don't have the data to back this up, but I suspect they comprise about 1O% of the electorate.
If it's the right message AND THE RIGHT MESSENGER!, that could cut into his approval. That would be the goal.
Agree THE question is can the Dems do it? I don't know. Carville says if the Identitarian Left wants the Dems to win elections, they should quiet themselves. I wholeheartedly agree. What is more important to them? Being vocal about their cause and getting attention in the media or winning elections?
I also don't know if the lawsuits, the ones he loses, help.
fact, media saturation works both ways: while constant exposure can desensitize the public, a well-coordinated and strategic narrative can also reinforce and reshape public perception. The assumption that voters have already ‘priced in’ Trump’s corruption may underestimate the power of sustained, focused messaging. If the opposition effectively links his corruption to tangible consequences—economic impact, threats to democracy, or personal stakes for voters—it could break through the noise and shift opinions, even among those who have been indifferent so far."
That argument makes sense. Do you think media saturation makes people numb to political scandals, or can the right framing still change minds?
Thanks, Kathleen, for keeping us in the loop. I would most prefer to read about what Trump is most likely to do with a negative Supreme Court decision, because I think that the most important decisions hinge on this question. If Trump bows to the courts, a semblance of order will continue. If Trump defies the Supreme Court, we are well and truly in the realm of chaos.
It felt a bit unsettling reading the first few paragraphs, are you my sister? It seems we share the same passion for knowledge and history! FUN!
It seems our siblings are kin too as they remember nothing of what Mom used to share.
BTW, I live in Texas across from a military base and the last couple of days there has been INTENSE and out of the normal time frame activity. My son lives in the burbs of Dallas and has noticed a VERY high helicopter activity. Creeps me out
Keep us informed!
We must do the counteroffensive with speed. Take to the streets. Begin an economic boycott. Stop buying. Stop buying everything.
https://bit.ly/4bhzA68
I agree boycott is our most powerful tool right now.
Number 2 is given. Anything and everything that involves bringing voice to the resistance - to support democracy.
But I am definitely most worried about how $Trump will use the military. As the weather improves, we will be on the streets. We will not be quiet. The crowds will grow larger with every outrage. The Orange Thing won't like the "look" of it. Will he invoke the Insurrection Act? And will there be push back from other authorities. Will the MA National Guard support Gov Healy or the Nazis?
And now that "we" have aligned with North Korea and Russia, what Americans will say "NO!"?
I think Trump will definitely defy the courts. But do we let it stand?? Is this the deal we make with Trump...letting him win...no! If we normalize the chaos he is close to overthrowing OUR government, so no, we do not let it stand!
Thank you for your support
No, we definitely don't let it stand, but that is a battle that will be fought a few months from now.
What do you think of James Carville's NYT article that we should not do anything and wait for the Republicans to implode. I was of that opinion also, until Trump's successful takeover of the DOJ and FBI with loyalists. With the control of the DOJ and FBI, Trump really does not need a base of supporters anymore. Hopefully I am wrong. What are your thoughts?