<not actually off-topic> I followed your link to the dnc '50-state strategy' donation page. Unfortunately, nowhere on that page or, frankly, anywhere trivially obvious on the site, was there an explanation of what the 50-state strategy is. I know it's horribly new-fangled and all, but I promise you that they'll get more donations if they actually describe what it is that people are donating for. Preferably in simple, clear language. For example, 'The DNC is organizing to run a candidate in every single race in the country in 2006' [I'm guessing what '50-state strategy' might mean] Or 'The DNC is working to raise voter participation in every state in the union in 2006.' But not being able to find anything that's short and pithy is frustrating and knee-capping.
Which brings me to the comparison of the Lakoff and Luntsz memos. Luntsz basically tells the candidate 'here are the terms to use that will appeal to what the public already believes they know about the issue.' Lakoff talks about 'here is how to talk about the issue in a way that is much more comprehensive.' Unfortunately, not only is the Lakoff framing reliably more complex, it also has much less punch, because it asks the listener to step outside their own frame, while the Luntsz spin basically reaffirms what the listener believes they already know. Even in the case where the Republican candidate is speaking to a Hispanic audience, who he expects will have personal connections to illegal immigrants, he still poses his frame in a way that affirms the self-perception of the listener. The Lakoff framing is mostly about other people, the Luntsz framing is about the listener.
And talking to prospective voters about other people isn't really a good way to win elections. Or, at least, it's much, much less effective than talking to a prospective voter about them.
50-state strategy: I updated the entry to include a link to the definition. Thanks for pointing out the omission.
Lakoff vs. Luntz: Your description is 100% correct. Lakoff is trying to change the debate through framing rather than using "what people already know" to convince them that the candidate they are listening to is the better candidate. They are different things and his has less punch. Would you consider writing to him about this? I think he needs to hear this from a lot of people.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-06-11 10:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-14 05:41 pm (UTC)I followed your link to the dnc '50-state strategy' donation page.
Unfortunately, nowhere on that page or, frankly, anywhere trivially obvious on the site, was there an explanation of what the 50-state strategy is. I know it's horribly new-fangled and all, but I promise you that they'll get more donations if they actually describe what it is that people are donating for. Preferably in simple, clear language. For example, 'The DNC is organizing to run a candidate in every single race in the country in 2006' [I'm guessing what '50-state strategy' might mean] Or 'The DNC is working to raise voter participation in every state in the union in 2006.' But not being able to find anything that's short and pithy is frustrating and knee-capping.
Which brings me to the comparison of the Lakoff and Luntsz memos. Luntsz basically tells the candidate 'here are the terms to use that will appeal to what the public already believes they know about the issue.' Lakoff talks about 'here is how to talk about the issue in a way that is much more comprehensive.' Unfortunately, not only is the Lakoff framing reliably more complex, it also has much less punch, because it asks the listener to step outside their own frame, while the Luntsz spin basically reaffirms what the listener believes they already know. Even in the case where the Republican candidate is speaking to a Hispanic audience, who he expects will have personal connections to illegal immigrants, he still poses his frame in a way that affirms the self-perception of the listener. The Lakoff framing is mostly about other people, the Luntsz framing is about the listener.
And talking to prospective voters about other people isn't really a good way to win elections. Or, at least, it's much, much less effective than talking to a prospective voter about them.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-15 01:27 pm (UTC)Lakoff vs. Luntz: Your description is 100% correct. Lakoff is trying to change the debate through framing rather than using "what people already know" to convince them that the candidate they are listening to is the better candidate. They are different things and his has less punch. Would you consider writing to him about this? I think he needs to hear this from a lot of people.