The aftermath of this election cycle* brings with it the same questions that always happen at the end of an election cycle. "Was the U.S. not ready for a president from [this demographic]?" "Why did the DNC focus on this state and not that state?" "What happened to the Latino/Black/Asian vote?" "Where were the young voters?" One thing that stood out to me in this election cycle, as in every cycle since Obama was president, was that Democrats have relied heavily on facts and data, but they tend to be much less heavy-handed on branding and storytelling. If I asked you what Trump's motto was, you'd already have those four letters flashing in your head before the end of this sentence. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. What was Harris's motto for this cycle?
(For reference, it was apparently "A New Way Forward" -- which I have to look up every time I want to reference it, despite having mentioned it to other people four times today alone.)
Reason lost the election -- and it was in part because (and I'm sorry if this sounds simplistic) reason wasn't packaged in a compelling, easy-to-understand, easy-to-distribute story. "MAGA" is. "MAGA" fits on a hat.
Compelling. Easy to understand. Easy to distribute.
People who bought MAGA hats wore them even in the aftermath of the 2020 election. Because it was a compelling message that was easy to understand and easy to distribute. It was so compelling that it had become a part of their identity -- a part of their identity so strong that they would wear it even when their candidate lost. And it was so easy to distribute that they took it everywhere they went -- on their cars, on their lawns, on their heads.
Why the Democrats have never tried to generate a message like this is beyond me. But it's as if they didn't realize what they were competing against. They were competing against people who resonated so strongly with a message that they would wear that message, even when it was socially costly to do so. And in response, they threw out facts and data. Here are the facts about abortion. Here is the data about climate change. But you have to put those into stories for people to resonate with them.
It seems ridiculous to draw a parallel between this election (something so big and consequential) and our work with our clients (because this makes it seem like some sort of sales pitch or SEO-optimization exercise). But it's the exact same problem, just on a smaller scale. You submit a grant proposal. You get rejected. You think, I didn't have enough facts or data, let me include more of those. Submit again. Rejected again. And the advice we have for our clients is: it's not about the facts and data. It's about the story that ties it together. A story that's compelling (emotional), a story that's easy to understand (doesn't give you more facts than you need), and a story that's easy to distribute (fits on a specific aims page).
We teach this to our clients because we honestly believe this. And I’m writing about this right now, claiming that this is the reason why the Democrats fared so badly in this election cycle, because I honestly believe this is the reason.
This is what I would say to Democratic leadership if they wanted to actually win something. It's not about the facts and data. It's about the story that ties it together.
Compelling. Easy to understand. Easy to distribute.
*The specific political views are that of the author. SCI·Foundry stands with him in the importance of clear and strong communications for all researchers.
