How to win!

[Hound of Heaven]

In another discussion, Gadianton inquired about the Pope and whether he is a Marxist. Rather than responding directly in that thread, I saw it as a chance to elaborate on why the Democratic Party has struggled to overcome Trump in nearly every endeavor over the past decade.

Regardless of your opinion on Trump, it is crucial to comprehend the reasons behind his success in winning two out of three presidential elections in the last decade if Democrats hope to secure a presidential victory in the future.

The primary reason the Democrats lost to Trump is that they permitted the progressives to exert excessive influence within the party. Historically, Progressivism presented many valuable concepts, and for the past two decades, it has depended on too much fear to persuade people that progressive ideals are better than conservative ones.

However, a shift occurred approximately 20 years ago, and I am convinced that the leaders of the progressive movement and the Democratic Party thought they could leverage the internet to more effectively convince Americans of the Democratic message. The internet serves as an excellent platform for politicians to attract supporters to the Democratic cause. However, the Democratic Party made a misstep by becoming overconfident and, at some point, believed that leveraging only fear to sway people into embracing Democratic values was a sound strategy.

The use of too much fear as a tool in the Democrats' arsenal to secure votes has ultimately led to the downfall of the party over the past decade. Many institutions now employ fear as a tactic to influence people's actions. Religions employ fear, companies leverage fear to sell products, doctors utilize fear to persuade patients to alter their habits, and parents resort to fear in their child-rearing practices. Fear, when applied appropriately, can serve as a potent motivator.

Here’s a crucial point that everyone should grasp, yet many overlook. Fear can be combined with humility and compassion to influence individuals to behave in a particular manner. All major world religions incorporate fear along with humility and compassion to illustrate how individuals can lead a life dedicated to serving God and each other during their time on earth. Fear serves as a potent motivator; however, when employed for persuasion, it should be balanced with more compassionate influences like empathy and humility. This is where the progressive movement and the Democratic Party made significant missteps, resulting in the loss of nearly all the achievements the party has secured over the past century.

I can't quite recall who specifically originated the concept of trying to frighten individuals into voting for Democrats, lacking a balance of humility and compassion. However, approximately 20 years ago, someone proposed that Democrats could leverage the internet to instill fear as a means to garner votes. Once they recognized the internet as a formidable tool for power and persuasion, they seemed to become somewhat overconfident. The influence of persuasion appeared to inflate their egos, while humility and compassion faded away, leaving fear as the primary tactic for the Democrat party. From this, cancel culture emerged, and during this period, anyone opposing the Democrat party faced a relentless onslaught of attacks, effectively being trapped in an internet prison. They could not escape until they fully repented of their perceived sins and demonstrated their willingness to accept the ideals of the Democrat party. This change to persuasion through fear without humility and compassion is what got Trump interested in fighting back against what a majority of Americans see as the democrats adopting a bully mentality to persuade people to vote for them.

Trump did not aspire to the presidency, rather, he wished for his fellow Americans to be free from interference. He felt compelled to act, unable to remain passive while witnessing Americans being pressured into supporting the Democrats.

Here’s what Democrats truly grasp about Trump, yet choose not to alter in order to effectively defeat him. Believe me, Trump won't be running in 2028, yet he will remain the most significant figure in that election, so Democrats need to devise a strategy to counter him. Trump is a New York businessman who doesn't tolerate nonsense from anyone. If you hit him, he will retaliate with double the force. If you stab him, he will retaliate by severing your gonads. Individuals with this mindset achieve success due to their relentless determination. They dominate by not only matching your intensity but aiming to surpass it, often doubling or even tripling it. This approach, through the power of persuasion, positions them as the sole viable choice for those aspiring to succeed.

What steps must the Democratic Party take to overcome Trump? First, they need to understand that Trump is leveraging fear to sway voters, much like the Democrats, but he does so with a smile and a sense of enjoyment, even dancing on stage as if relishing every moment. Democrats fail to recognize the impact of a genuine smile and some graceful dance moves in front of thousands of people. Trump begins his rallies in a manner similar to how he interacts with people, he opens on a positive note, perhaps with dancing or smiling, effectively disarming the audience. He then proceeds to criticize his opponent for an extended period. Finally, he lifts the mood once more by expressing his love for the crowd and declaring them the greatest people to have ever existed. He excels at leveraging the art of persuasion and manipulation to lead others to believe he is the one worth following.

He recognizes that employing fear is crucial for persuasion, however, he also knows that it must be balanced with compassion and humility. Otherwise, his persuasive efforts may be perceived as intimidation.

Let's assign some arbitrary percentages to the ratio of fear to humility/compassion that Trump employs to persuade people. Consider that if he employs 60% fear and 40% humility or compassion to balance his persuasive abilities, it's clear that this strategy has proven effective in securing his election twice. I believe that the reason Democrats struggle to defeat Trump is that they spend 90% of their efforts trying to persuade through fear, while only 10% of the time demonstrating humility and compassion. Relying on fear most of the time portrays Democrats as bullies, making them appear less appealing to voters. Keep in mind that influencing individuals to cast their votes is less about facts and more about building trust, the truth is secondary.

What I just described is that politics operates as a game of persuasion, and over the past decade, Trump's persuasive abilities have proven more effective. As a businessman, he recognizes that to sell fear, one must incorporate a few complementary elements, such as humility and compassion. At present, the Democrats are merely getting by with the main course, convinced that side dishes hold little significance. However, anyone reading this knows that Americans have a fondness for side dishes. To defeat Trump, Democrats must begin to offer more appealing alternatives to what he is currently presenting, and they need to learn how to engage with the American people warmly and positively. They must acquire the skills to dance before large audiences, as their current image resembles that of a schoolyard bully.

Defeating a figure like Trump is not particularly challenging. The sole factor preventing the Democrats from effectively competing with Trump is their reluctance to acknowledge defeat. Unless they acknowledge their shortcomings, nothing will shift, they will perpetually be seen as the schoolyard bully.

[Gunnar]

HoH, This is the most delusional nonsense I have seen you post yet! Trump using fear to persuade is certainly true. That he deliberately (and, unfortunately, successfully) appealed to bigotry and xenophobia is even more true. Humility on his part?! Abject nonsense! I have never seen any significant trace of humility from Trump! Only narcissistic self-aggrandizement and an insatiable lust for personal wealth and power. He claims to know more than anybody, including the most qualified scientists, doctors and experts of any kind. He demonstrates a complete contempt for the very concept of science and expertise itself. It is blazingly obvious that one of his main motivations to seek the Presidency in the first place was to escape just prosecution for crimes he was already guilty of from before his running for office and for crimes he intends to get away with in the future. He is incontestably a convicted felon, and would probably already be in prison now, were it not for the Supreme Court foolishly granting him immunity for any unlawful actions he committed while in office!

[Hound of Heaven]

Your inability to grasp my message demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the influence of persuasion.

To begin with, Gunnar, I never claimed that Trump is compassionate or humble, rather, I stated that he knows how to leverage humility and compassion to sell fear.

I am genuinely asking, without any sarcasm, if you could take a moment to consider what I am trying to express with that statement. A salesperson does not require compassion or humility to take advantage of the benefits that come from these qualities. Do you not realize that when you engage with a politician, a reverend, a pastor, a bishop, a car salesman, or a vacuum cleaner salesman, etc, you are not truly conversing with the individual they genuinely are? Instead, you are interacting with the persona they have meticulously crafted over many years and through extensive trial and error, designed to be more persuasive than their authentic selves.

I find it hard to believe that I have to clarify this for you, but here we are. Have you ever watched a murder mystery program on TV that discusses how the murderer featured in the show appeared to be the nicest guy on the block to his neighbors, despite his true self being obsessed with murdering and torturing people? Many individuals who are truly unpleasant and reprehensible are adept at manipulating emotions and character traits they do not genuinely possess to sway others through persuasive power. Joseph Smith was a skilled persuader, and even 200 years later, Mormons still regard him as one of the most humble and compassionate individuals to have ever lived, despite the knowledge that he was a con artist. A further excellent illustration of my point is the video link shared by Jersey Girl in her latest thread. Laurence O'Donnell discusses his belief that Trump and Elon are trying to harm people, particularly children globally, by cutting off aid to foreign nations. I encourage you to watch the video, the message itself isn't the key aspect. Pay attention to how O'Donnell is attempting to present the story to the audience. Keep track of the number of times he smiles. Does his overall message evoke a sense of positivity, or does it instill a feeling of dread? My point is, O'Donnell's message is quite monotonous, it's boring, and there's not even a single moment that attempts to uplift the audience. This means he lacks an understanding of human nature and the significance of leaving people feeling uplifted, even when the message conveyed is one of doom and gloom. Laurence O'Donnell is a singularly focused performer, and his audience seems limited to a small group of progressives who thrive on negativity.

Gunnar, do you grasp the objective of contemporary politics in today's information era? Have you ever truly paused to comprehend human nature and the influence fear has on our daily decision-making?

[Gunnar]

Gunnar, do you grasp the objective of contemporary politics in today's information era? Have you ever truly paused to comprehend human nature and the influence fear has on our daily decision-making?

So, your solution to defeating Trump, is to embrace the same despicable, tactics of fearmongering, race baiting and appealing to the basest impulses of human nature such as bigotry, hatred, intolerance and demonization of others, who are not like ourselves, used by Trump and his minions? What a horrid, negative and immoral outlook!

[Hound of Heaven]

Explaining this to you is akin to attempting to convey to a Mormon that their church is similar to any other church on earth, it seems nearly impossible for them to grasp that the negative aspects they perceive in other churches also exist within their own, provided they are willing to broaden their perspective just a bit.

Are you truly going to assert to everyone reading this that you think the tactics of fear mongering, race baiting, and appealing to the base impulses of human nature, such as bigotry, hatred, intolerance, and the demonization against those who are different from ourselves, are not part of the Democrat party in the same way they are in the Republican party?

Are you truly that unsuspecting? If that’s the case, we’re all in trouble, the Democratic Party is in serious jeopardy!

[Kishkumen]

In another discussion, Gadianton inquired about the Pope and whether he is a Marxist. Rather than responding directly in that thread, I saw it as a chance to elaborate on why the Democratic Party has struggled to overcome Trump in nearly every endeavor over the past decade.

“Instead of having a conversation, I will now spout incoherent nonsense.” ~HoH

[Dr Exiled]

I think you're wasting your time here HOH. The TDS is too strong for any self-reflection. Blame Trump and blame him often because that is what the mockingbird media demands. Anything else is discounted as supporting Trump because he's litterally hitler and democracy is at stake and so he must continually be blamed for everything and pointing out TDS means you and me are secret Trump lovers or whatever nonsense enters their brains.

[Dr Exiled]

Once Trump leaves it'll probably settle down and cognitive abilities will overcome the emotional thinking virus.

[canpakes]

To answer the OP in the same manner as presented:

The OP presents a sweeping and deeply flawed argument, both in its assumptions and in its conclusions, about the causes of Democratic electoral struggles and the appeal of Donald Trump. It relies heavily on generalizations, selective reasoning, and ideological bias rather than evidence-based analysis. Here’s a detailed rebuttal that systematically addresses and challenges the core claims made:

1. Misrepresentation of Democratic Electoral History

The claim that Democrats have failed to “overcome Trump in nearly every endeavor over the past decade” is inaccurate. In fact, the Democratic Party has had significant electoral successes during this period:
• 2020 Presidential Election: Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump decisively, both in the popular vote (by over 7 million votes) and in the Electoral College (306 to 232).
• Midterm Elections: In 2018, Democrats gained 41 House seats, flipping control of the House of Representatives—a clear repudiation of Trump-era policies.
• Senate Control: Democrats regained control of the Senate in 2020 (and held it in 2022), defying historical midterm trends.
• State and Local Victories: Democrats have made gains in gubernatorial and state legislature races in numerous battleground states.

To suggest that the Democratic Party has collapsed due to progressive overreach is a gross oversimplification. U.S. politics is highly cyclical, and both parties experience swings in power due to a wide variety of factors, including economic trends, cultural shifts, and unforeseen events (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic).

2. Exaggerated Influence of Fear in Democratic Strategy

The author asserts that the Democratic Party has relied almost exclusively on fear to persuade voters. This is a mischaracterization:
• Policy Focus: Democratic campaigns have focused heavily on health care (e.g., protection of the Affordable Care Act), economic equality, reproductive rights, climate change, and civil rights—not solely on fear, but on positive visions for the future.
• Unity Messaging: Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign was based around the themes of unity, compassion, and a “battle for the soul of the nation,” which explicitly rejected divisiveness and fear-mongering.
• Use of Fear in Politics: Fear is not unique to the Democratic Party. Trump’s 2016 and 2020 campaigns prominently featured fear of immigrants, crime, socialism, and cultural change. Claiming Democrats rely more heavily on fear than Republicans is either dishonest or deeply uninformed.

Fear is a tool used in all political messaging—by both parties—to underscore urgency. The difference is in how it is contextualized: Democrats often use it to warn about threats to democracy, healthcare, or the environment; Republicans use it to stoke anxieties about immigration, crime, and “wokeness.” Neither side owns the patent on fear.

3. Overstatement of “Cancel Culture” and Its Political Relevance

The author introduces a vague and alarmist narrative about “cancel culture,” portraying it as a coordinated Democratic strategy for enforcing ideological conformity. This is misleading:
• What is “Cancel Culture”? It is a loosely defined term that has been weaponized in political discourse to describe everything from public accountability to social media backlash. It is not, nor has it ever been, a formal political strategy of the Democratic Party.
• False Equivalence: While social media outrage can come from any side of the political spectrum, the GOP also engages in forms of cancel culture—banning books, censoring school curricula, and punishing dissent within its own ranks (e.g., the censure of Liz Cheney).
• Lack of Evidence: There is no evidence that “cancel culture” is why Democrats have lost elections, and such a claim substitutes culture war rhetoric for substantive political analysis.

4. Mischaracterization of Trump’s Motives and Persona

The notion that Trump “did not aspire to the presidency” and was merely a selfless patriot is contradicted by his decades of self-promotion, personal ambition, and public statements:
• Longstanding Political Interest: Trump publicly flirted with presidential runs in 1988, 2000, 2004, and 2012.
• Self-Enrichment: As president, he violated norms regarding personal enrichment, refused to divest from his business empire, and funneled taxpayer money into Trump-owned properties.
• Rhetorical Style: His public persona is not marked by humility or compassion, but by bombast, cruelty, and division. His rallies are often filled with personal attacks, misinformation, and mockery—not moral instruction or healing rhetoric.

To portray him as someone employing a “balanced blend of fear and compassion” is revisionist at best and disingenuous at worst.

5. Misguided Comparison Between Trump and Democratic Politicians

The author praises Trump’s charisma, humor, and “dance moves” as somehow central to his political success. While presentation matters in politics, the underlying assertion—that Democrats fail because they do not smile and dance enough—is unserious:
• Style vs. Substance: The implication that Democrats lose elections because they are not fun or performative enough underestimates the electorate’s intelligence. Voters care about healthcare, jobs, security, education—not how well a politician dances on stage.
• Democratic Figures with Charisma: Barack Obama was one of the most charismatic politicians in modern history, and he won two terms with wide coalitions. Other Democrats, such as Stacey Abrams, Beto O’Rourke, and Gretchen Whitmer, have demonstrated strong public engagement and personal appeal.

Charisma helps, but it is no substitute for policy clarity, competence, and integrity.

6. The False Narrative of Democrats as “Bullies”

The claim that Democrats appear as “schoolyard bullies” is an inversion of reality. Trump’s political brand has been explicitly based on insults, aggression, and ridicule. From mocking a disabled reporter, to calling political opponents derogatory nicknames, to encouraging chants like “lock her up,” Trump’s style is far more bullying than persuasive.

Furthermore, framing the Democratic Party as “refusing to acknowledge defeat” ignores that:
• Trump refused to concede the 2020 election.
• He incited an insurrection at the Capitol to overturn certified results.
• Most Democrats, by contrast, have accepted electoral outcomes even when unfavorable, and have not promoted conspiracy theories about election fraud.

7. Conclusion: Persuasion Isn’t Solely About Optics—It’s About Trust and Policy

The idea that Democrats just need to “smile more” or use fear more artfully misunderstands the political landscape. What voters want is leadership that understands their struggles, proposes real solutions, and behaves with decency.

Trump’s appeal to a segment of the electorate is real—but his record is marred by incompetence, divisiveness, and corruption. The task for Democrats is not to mimic his tactics, but to restore trust through consistency, ethical leadership, and a clear policy agenda.

Rather than buying into mythologies about Trump as a populist savior or Democrats as fearmongering tyrants, political observers should commit to good-faith, fact-based analysis. The health of American democracy depends on it.

; )

[Gunnar]

7. Conclusion: Persuasion Isn’t Solely About Optics—It’s About Trust and Policy

The idea that Democrats just need to “smile more” or use fear more artfully misunderstands the political landscape. What voters want is leadership that understands their struggles, proposes real solutions, and behaves with decency.

Trump’s appeal to a segment of the electorate is real—but his record is marred by incompetence, divisiveness, and corruption. The task for Democrats is not to mimic his tactics, but to restore trust through consistency, ethical leadership, and a clear policy agenda.

Rather than buying into mythologies about Trump as a populist savior or Democrats as fearmongering tyrants, political observers should commit to good-faith, fact-based analysis. The health of American democracy depends on it.

; )

Thanks, Canpakes! Your conclusions make infinitely more sense and are infinitely more coherent than anything HoH has ever posted. And unlike HoH's conclusions, they are based on incontrovertible, factual reality that he can't even attempt to deny without revealing himself to be either a liar, or fool or both.