For those who say Edwards' MESSAGE doesn't resonate...

would you please elaborate?

There are many posts here saying Edwards' message obviously doesn't resonate with people.

I could understand if you meant his DELIVERY of the message didn't resonate for whatever reason, but there are quite a few who specifically target his message (not him personally as a candidate...there are plenty of threads for that...lol).

Please, what is it about the populist message in this day and age, when the haves are indeed pulling lightyears away from the have-nots, that you don't believe the average citizen resonates with? Especially given studies and articles such as the one discussed in the following thread, showing people place little trust in corporations (not all corporations, but the Enrons, Halliburtons, GE's).

I would think it's a given that people don't trust politicians or Corporate America (including the media) nowadays. While comparatively little has bubbled to the surface, it's been enough over the years to make people disgusted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4141715


So, please enlighten me as to why the MESSAGE hasn't resonated, in your opinion?

Republican, have mimicked it ! They've all literally stolen his lines, his talking points, his verbage. This is something I don't really understand and can't explain. It is disheartening. But the truth is that others have taken his message, which is THE MESSAGE of this election: the Economy, the poor and middle class, healthcare, disparity. It is what they all are running on. It is truly the most bizarre thing I have ever seen. They want "the message", but are depending on others to bring it to them.

and it's the same people who dismiss Edwards' message - and thus dismiss us, as supporters of this message - as irrelevant. Whiners. Conspiracy theorists.

I'll take on the mantle of conspiracy theorist willingly.

I think the people trying to spread the message that the media has had no influence in his campaign indeed have an agenda. I think the people trying to say his MESSAGE doesn't resonate with the average person have an agenda.

I'm inviting them to share here openly and transparently.

Why would anyone NOT want a populist message spread far and wide? Is there something dangerous there that disturbs the two-party status quo?

If you think it isn't realistic, why not? Especially if you're an Obama supporter who recognizes the challenging yet ambitious message of unity Obama offers.

Why are we Edwards supporters, who are behind his MESSAGE 100%, ridiculed as believing in something that is irrelevant?

As the saying has been repeated here quite often of late: first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

I'm all ears/eyes. :patriot:

as CTs. I don't think they dismiss John as such. But we are all (and the general population more than others) subject to the constant and relentless influence of the MSM. Now, I've said previously that the MSM had a lot of influence but not ALL influence of how John was portrayed in this primary season. But that is only to a point. Could I, as an Edwards supporter, have marginalized myself because I've been brainwashed into feeling my candidate doesn't have a chance?? I'm a fairly smart person.. I don't want to think this.. but I have to wonder if a lot of people have balked simply because JE has not been portrayed as a serious candidate; that I've already accepted the "fact" that I'm going to have to choose between the other two.

I'm rambling. LOL. I just hope that we end up with a brokered convention, and JE has a chance to do something substantial that the MSM has not heretofore allowed him to do !

"here at DU." lol. We're bashed regularly as being conspiratory nuts because we believe the media has had an influence at all.

:hi:

What the American people need to do is THINK!! But that's NOT what most do. If anyone saw Bill Maher's Caucus II video today it said so much. Now I don't know if the video was cut just to show the "funny & bizarre" but if most of America only knows as much as those people did, then it EXPLAINS it all.

Those comments are not about race, because the people he featured were all black, I am no racist... very very far from it. For some strange reason watching various shows of competition I'm always pulling for the person that's not white. Can't explain that, but it's true. I'm a white female. But what that video showed is that FAR TOO MANY Americans have NO CLUE! Most don't even know what's going on! One black guy couldn't even think of Obama's name!!

Anyway, the tale is, and it's been told many times over, even has been said by journalist like David Gregory, Chuck Todd and David Schuster that the D.C. Elites "hate" Edwards. The the word HATE was used. I so wish I could find the post debate conversation with Tweety, David Gregory and Chuck Todd, but I don't remember which debate it was or the date of the debate. Someone help me!!

John Edwards has the message, I happen to think he does speak effectively (NO SPEECH WRITERS) and always takes questions after an event. He's been attacked for always being late, but perhaps he's late BECAUSE he DOES take any question from his audience. He's been ignored, called insignificant and even tonight before the Lou Dobbs show, Wolfie asked Dobbs what he thought about last night's debate... his comment about Edwards after first addressing Clinton & Obama was that Edwards was the guy who seemed to be glad to "be there!" With this kind of crap going on day after day, the comments by so many others tell me that there are POWERFUL people working behind the scenes to keep him down!

It's sick and yes, BIZARRE, but INTENTIONAL! America goes with what MSM sells who get their orders from whomever controls them. It's just that simple to me and it's MY opinion, but I think the opinion of most Edwards supporters.

Must leave, Edwards is supposed to be on Letterman now.

I certainly agree, especially with your thoughts about power working behind the scenes.

I posted this because I'm always intrigued when others here at DU don't acknowledge the role MSM and other behind-the-scenes influences have had in suppressing his message.

For those who slam Edwards as a candidate, that's one thing. That's their opinion.

But when they dismiss the message as not resonating - not the man - I'm genuinely intrigued.

Lots of agendas going on...I'm just trying to understand more about them and from whence some of them are coming...lol.

I think John is up next!

:hi:

The Reagan era notion that the best path for the middle class is not to concern oneself about relative sizes of the slices, but rather focus on expanding the pie.

This works reasonably well if the pie can be expanded in a more or less linear fashion so that everyone's slice grows. The problem, of course, is that one eventually smacks into limits to growth. Hence, economic growth must be attained through other means ... complex financial instruments, branding of intellectual property, development of a global labor market that pays no respect to worker or consumer rights or environmental protections, etc. And, of course, that is what we have seen.

The result is a bifurcation of the pie. We now have essentially two pies. An ever smaller pie is divided amongst the working classes. An "ownership society" shares a larger and swelling pie.

The problem, of course, is that the growth of the ownership pie becomes increasingly dependent on complex and abstract arrangements that are easily disrupted by international strife (wars), resource crunches (peak oil), and the inability of the working class to shore it up by spending their ever shrinking piece of pie. The results are predictable and liberal economists (and a lot of DUers) have predicting them for quite a while now.

Still, the growth myth has been the conventional wisdom since the mid 1980s.

The trick for policy makers is to identify the point of critical balance between the principle of wealth distribution (investment in society) and wealth expansion (return on investment). When we know how to identify that balance, and know how to describe that in simple terms to the people, we will be able to replace the supply side/growth myth with a more effective and humane model.

** On Edit **

Ya know, other posters in this thread are right ... the message IS resonating because more and more people are waking up to the fact that the pie ain't growing for them and their peers and Edwards' message speaks directly to the causes and solutions of their problems. Where the message finds resistance is among the middle and upper middle class professionals who are highly stressed but still hoping that at the end of the day the economy will grow them out of this mess. I think liberal economists like Krugman are very close to describing a "business model" or "operating theory" that can replace the Reagan era model and have the advantage of, uh, actually working.

Through, say, stock ownership in retirement plan portfolios? Slivers of a pie, from which these token owners are easily and repeatedly seperated. Dude, finance guys get paid the big bucks to suck all the value they can out of shares like that. Haven't you noticed that the least successful CEO's are often the most highly paid? Why does that happen? Maybe they aren't really all that unsuccessful ...

Check out the change in the definition of inflation. Check out what inflation measures as defined circa 1980 would tell us about our current rate of inflation. Then check that against the growth in value of the average middle class investment portfolio.

There is technical ownership ... and then there is controlling ownership, and these are very different things.

I should have asked this after your first post, sorry.

Could you elaborate more on the "two different pies"? I assume you mean that there are two separate pools of wealth, with each pool being exclusively available to a certain group of people. Are these groups static?

Are you talking about intellectual property rights vs. property rights? Anyone in this country can own either both.

If you are referring to the fact that the Bush administration has been taking money that the market could have otherwise used towards better means and giving it to giant corporations (most of which he has ties to), then I'm not sure why you would talk about two separate pies... it's one pie, with the government pillaging individuals' slices to give to other individuals.

I have not explained myself well. And I must further emphasize I am not a financial wiz or anything.

The pie analogy is just that ... an analogy, used for illustration. Analogy is always suspect but can be useful in building models for investigation or explanation. In this case, it may not be a real good model ... I was trying to reference back to the Reagan era propaganda. (Grow a bigger pie being their mantra.) The EFFECT on the average guy looks to me like indeed there are two distinct pies ... one of which is shrinking and the other growing.

But it would be inaccurate and dangerous to push that analogy too far in a real analysis. It is probably more accurate to say that the slice accessible to the pool of wage earners has been limited and shrinking over the past several years while the pie itself inflated. But the other point is that the inflation of the pie is largely illusory ... the product of an investment economy that has become so abstract that there is no tangible value backing the investments. (Another slippery thought there ... what constitutes "value"? Is not the value of something simply an abstraction? Point is ... looks like a lot of people are investing in paper, and the value of paper can suddenly disappear.)

As far as intellectual property rights go ... well, perhaps they have gone too far. Court decisions regarding GM crops and seeds that blow onto someone's land, for example, are kind of alarming. Additionally, the pernicious practice of patenting common knowledge and application for the purposes of inhibiting competition. Microsoft is NOTORIOUS for this kind of thing. A lot of patents are granted today when there is no substantial innovation involved ... but this allocates to a corporation the exclusive right to use knowledge that was previously freely accessible to all.

The current tax and regulatory environment clearly favors larger businesses at the expense of smaller ones, in various ways.

As for intellectual property: Yeah, I'm not sure where I stand on IP law, though the law is clearly slanted towards patent owners (who can patent an idea, never use it, then sue when someone else independently develops the idea... they don't even have to win the case, their goal is a settlement).

since I was just giving the board a fast scan before shutting down for the night. Kudos to you! This is exactly the kind of reply that makes this board worthwhile. How great to have posters who will not only take the time to layout their own thoughts on a subject, but then read all other replies and incorporate the jist of them into the post.You have just made my list of posters with gravitas and thus always desrving a read. Thanks, Cat

I think what is happening here isn't that people are rejecting JRE's message so much as they are judging him on the soundbytes that the media selectively (key word) replays without the full context.

That either (1) scares people because they don't like change (the devil you know vs the one you don't or (2) it turns them off because EVERY politican promotes "change". Therefore, they lean to the status quo who promises not to shake too many things up, but that they will be "tough" about not shaking that tree (Clinton).

OR, we are the microwave/drive through generation that just expects it to "happen" and are happy with someone blowing platitudes about how it is all going to be all right as soon as we come together. The problem with this approach is that Washington Politicians aren't college kids with rose colored glasses on. They are fighters who have to re-earn their jobs every 4-6 years. (Obama)

Or lack thereof in Edwards' case. To anyone that pays attention to coverage of all candidates, it's obvious.

John scores very well with focus groups after debates. They like him, but more importantly they like his MESSAGE. Hence my question.

People also have said, in these same focus groups, that they like him but probably wouldn't vote for him because they don't think he's electable.

Sound familiar? Very popular meme here.

And why don't they think he's electable? Well, the average citizen is getting his/her information from MSM, not researching anything in depth online as many here. The debates are often the first good "feel" they can get for a candidate.

But because they've been told for months and months that there only only two electable people in the race - proven time and again by media coverage reports comparing all candidates' coverage - they feel they don't really have a choice.

people in New Hampshire who were worried about the economy broke in the exact same numbers as the general population--and that was his signature issue. He did no better among people who reported a financial situation "falling behind" opposed to "holding steady" or "getting ahead." He did no better among people who complained about health care costs, and worse among people complaining about lack of insurance. He did no better among those who listed the economy as their most important issue, and only slightly better among those who listed health care. In Iowa, people who listed the economy as their biggest concern were not more likely to break Edwards, either.

I believe you have voiced that comment regarding Edwards before. Perhaps you meant HE didn't resonate, rather than the message?

I'm only saying that his message didn't.

First, he didn't pick up much support at all. When we look at the exit polls, we find that his supporters were not any more likely to agree with his campaign's concerns than the supporters of other candidates were. Unlike Clinton and Obama, there is no one unifying factor you can find among his supporters.

Obama supporters overwhelmingly believe in change. His message clearly has some resonance; the desire for change drives people to his campaign. Clinton supporters overwhelmingly approve of Bill Clinton's presidency, and have as a priority healthcare and experience. Her message has some resonance; the desires for competence and a Clinton restoration drive people to her campaign. Edwards, on the other hand, does not have any issues that appear to be resonating.

Having had the opportunity to see all candidates multiple times, Edwards was the only one to me who seemed to be speaking about problems that concerned common people.
But thanks to the media freezing him out and making it a 2 person race, his message seldom went beyond the venue of the day.

The message would resonate fine, if it was coming from somenone people could take seriously.

However, when you are dealing with someone who voted for the war, patriot act, bankrupcy bill, free trade with china, limiting liability to nuclear power plans AND worked for a hedge fund neck deep in predatory lending AND the fact that he lies about not taking money from lobbyisits or corporations, it becomes hard for people to take the message very seriously.

who didn't criticize the MESSENGER but said the MESSAGE itself didn't resonate.

The prettiest song will not draw an audience if played through a beat-up trumpet.

Hate to say (and it may or may not be fair) but its perceptions about the messenger.

underfed, working poor who are desperate for a good job and daycare and no 12 hour swing shifts for mothers with newborns. God the stuff I see everyday would curl your hair!
People who can't pay their water bill and cannot bathe or wash. A disabled vet who can't get out of his apartment because he can't afford the battery for his wheel chair!
94 year olds who live on their own and have trouble getting to their Doctors appointments.

that I am FULLY AWARE that people here feel EDWARDS is the problem...not his message.

I get that. Believe me, we ALL get that. LOL.

I have read repeatedly here comments about Edwards being okay, it's just "that his message evidently doesn't resonate with people."

Really, I can respect people not resonating with him personally and therefore not listening to his message. That's NOT what this thread is about.

I'm trying to get to the heart of why some here feel the message doesn't resonate.

But looking at exit polling, it's pretty clear that his message did not resonate.

Which is it?

1. Why do you say the message does not resonate?
2. The message did not resonate. Why did it not?

When I first read this, it seemed like Yoda was posing the question. ;)

I am asking someone to help provide insight into the claim that the MESSAGE, not the man, hasn't resonated.

fault.
1- Many people work for, have stocks, 401ks, pension plans ,retirement plans, and deal with corporations everyday and they see some abuses but don't view AOL, AutoZone, Bacardi, Best Buy, Burger King, Campbell Soup, Dell, Dominos Pizza, FedEx, Google, Hallmark, Hasbro, Kraft, Kroger , etc..etc.. etc.. on andon as the Devil incarnate.

2- What was his solution if you bought into the whole "it's all the fault of the Corporations"? He was very vague about that, he talked in sound bites- " I won't let them sit at the table because they will eat all the food!" "It's personal to me!"
Wtf do you do with that kind of rhetoric?

I respectfully disagree with you about the public's general perception about large corporations and how they affect their lives. Edwards made it clear he isn't talking about all corporations - he's talking about corporate excess and greed, a la Enron, Halliburton, etc. I think people are very skeptical, even if they have stocks, etc. That's my opinion, yet the link I have in the OP says the following:

"The U.S. public holds Big Business in shockingly low regard.

A November 2007 Harris poll found that less than 15 percent of the population believes each of the following industries to be “generally honest and trustworthy:” tobacco companies (3 percent); oil companies (3 percent); managed care companies such as HMOs (5 percent); health insurance companies (7 percent); telephone companies (10 percent); life insurance companies (10 percent); online retailers (10 percent); pharmaceutical and drug companies (11 percent); car manufacturers (11 percent); airlines (11 percent); packaged food companies (12 percent); electric and gas utilities (15 percent). Only 32 percent of adults said they trusted the best-rated industry about which Harris surveyed, supermarkets.<1>

These are remarkable numbers. It is very hard to get this degree of agreement about anything. By way of comparison, 79 percent of adults believe the earth revolves around the sun; 18 percent say it is the other way around.<2>

The Harris results are not an aberration. The results have not varied considerably over the past five years — although overall trust levels have actually declined from the already very low threshold in 2003.

The Harris results are also in line with an array of polling data showing deep concern about concentrated corporate power."


As for your second point, he actually is good about detailing how he would approach matters. Whether or not people hear him or pay attention is another story. His website is user friendly (http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/)

I know you're not an Edwards fan, I'm just sayin'...if you wanted to see what he proposes.

:)


edit for clarity

63% of people would not trust a member of Congress
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=688

And if this comes back to you feeling that the problem lies with Edwards and not his MESSAGE, that's cool. That's your opinion.

I've simply been trying to get at the heart of why anyone would feel the populist MESSAGE wouldn't resonate, which is my mission with this thread.

:)

has always resonated within the Democratic Party - from Robert La Follette to Huey Long to John Edwards. Seldom has it become mainstream Democratic ideology because it promises much more than it delivers. Populists are the snake charmers of the Democratic Party. They wave shiny objects.

do you feel is too "shiny" or unrealistic? (on edit) And why?

Much of it is not.

The Democratic Party has always toyed with the fringe of populism and has been very open to progressive ideas. It is, however, essentially a middle-class Party.

1) Do you have any specifics about the populist message you can elaborate on as far as what's realistic and/or what resonates most or turns voters off the most?

2) Do you not believe today's middle class resonates with the populist message?

Most middle-class voters have very little faith in the ability of the government to solve problems. The notion that somehow if “X” is elected, the poor will get richer and the rich will get poorer is a nice sentiment but few people actually believe it can happen. We all want “someone on our side” or “someone that understands our problems” but the truth is, once they are elected, the practicality of politics sets in and they do only what they have to survive. Even a cursory look at the 2006 election Iraq war rhetoric (and the current reality) should give insight to this.

Today’s middle class is interested in educating their children, paying off their mortgage, investing in their 401ks and enjoying the pleasures life has to offer. They work hard and expect to reap the benefits of their effort. They are generous with their time and money and they are looking for leadership that will prolong this existence. They are good people but certainly more interested in themselves and their families than they are in believing their government will set right the injustices of the world.

As a final comment about the middle class in today's America, the economic realities are very much hitting home. The middle class is shrinking and struggling: bankruptcies and foreclosures going through the roof for this socioeconomic class...if they have healthcare, the copays and limits and exclusion of services are lending to their financial struggle...gas, groceries, everything is going up.

It's no longer about sustaining the basic "good life" for today's middle class. While it can certainly get much, much worse - and for many it is dire - it is a day-to-day struggle for America's middle class today. That's why after these debates John's message does resonate, and not just for those living below the poverty line.

Again, thank you for the thoughtful responses.

That there are 40 million people in the United States without health care, it is also true that there are 260 million people with health care. The cost for this has certainly risen drastically over the last decade but I see nothing in Edwards’ health care proposal that would lower my insurance premiums. In fact, they are more likely to rise without a single payer plan.

I agree that the middle class is beginning to get “squeezed” by higher food, gas and heating fuel bills (mine is MA is astronomical). But I see nothing in Edwards' plans that will reduce my cost of food, gas or heating fuel (or anything for that matter).

My mother used to say this in reference to those who did not understand the plight of the poor or less fortunate. Sadly by the time the middle and upper class start to feel the pinch of tight shoes, it will be too late.

I honestly believe most people are stressed and feeling stretched thin in the last six months or so...I think the middle class can see the writing on the wall...so I think the populist message applies to the vast, vast majority of Americans.

I don't think most of them have had the opportunity to truly hear the message. Not really.

When the majority feels the true pangs of hunger then and only than will they truly listen.

John Edwards is on Letterman gotta go.

resonate.