IF IT WEREN'T FOR FOX NEWS TALKING POINTS, WE'D HAVE NO TALKING POINTS AT ALL

The New York Times has just published the transcript of another focus group, this one consisting of fourteen independent voters who say they voted for Barack Obama in at least one election, then subsequently voted for Donald Trump. There's a lot that's disheartening about this group (six of the fourteen would vote for Joe Manchin as president!), but what I find most dispiriting is the fact that Democrats' take on the GOP barely penetrates these voters' consciousness, while the GOP/Fox News take on Democrats has clearly colonized their minds.

Case in point: Here's the one participant who describes a crisis of democracy in America. Guess which party is responsible, in his opinion.

Mark: Democracy is more concerning. You see how the Democrats in power, they seem to be wanting — changing the rules, you know. Voting rights, we can’t win free and fair elections, so let’s change some rules there.

Democrats, of course, haven't "changed the rules," though they're trying, for legitimate reasons. No one chimes in to say that Republicans actually are changing the rules, in state after state. It's as if they have no idea that voting laws are being changed in Republican-run states.

Then we come to the one-word characterizations of the parties:

Frank Luntz: We’re going to do a word and phrase for the Democrats and word or phrase for the Republicans. Scott, give me a word or phrase to describe the Democrats.

Scott: Cohesiveness. The anti-hate. Calmness, I would think.

Don: Revolution. Revolutionary.

Dickie: Fair.

Jim: Sometimes too liberal, but together.

Alice: They’re more, like, people-oriented.

Travis: Sneaky.

Janet: He stole mine.

Tenae: Crazy.

Azariah: Sweet talkers.

Kristine: Chaotic.

Mark: Radical.

Julia: Going toward socialism.

Nick: Smooth talkers.

Jules: Currently intolerant.

There are a couple of positive words, and "Chaotic" at least seems like an accurate negative assessment. But then there's the GOP/Fox narrative: "Revolutionary," "Radical," "Going toward socialism," "Currently intolerant." Also: "Sneaky"? "Sweet talkers"? "Smooth talkers"? I find this as baffling as I found "Slick Willie" during the Clinton years. People who are slick and smooth get away with things and dodge accountability for their deeds. Democrats today, like the Democratic president a quarter century ago, are forever being accused. They're the opposite of slick and smooth.

Quite a few of the characterizations of Republicans are negative, but no one seems to think they're radical.

Frank Luntz: OK, now give me a word or phrase to describe the Republicans.

Jules: Very loud.

Nick: They don’t represent everybody.

Julia: Have to regroup.

Kristine: Wrong direction. I can’t think of one word.

Mark: Weak.

Azariah: Ruthless.

Tenae: Inconsistent.

Janet: Uncivil.

Jim: Dishonest and cowardly.

Alice: More business-oriented.

Travis: Arrogant.

Dickie: Capitalistic.

Don: Unnecessarily divisive.

Scott: Chaotic.

Yes, the characterizations include "Weak" and "Inconsistent." That's a right-wing message, too. (If you pay attention to right-wing media, you'll see that one reaction to the defeat of the Democrats' voting rights legislation was that Republicans fought back -- for once.)

I'm glad some of these people see Republicans as "Ruthless," "Uncivil," "Arrogant," and "Unnecessarily divisive," but no one sees Republicans as ideologically extreme. Only dyed-in-the-wool liberals and progressives see that. That's a messaging failure.