Anat Shenker-Osorio on Messaging That Wins
Anat Shenker-Osorio, founder of ASO Communications and host of the podcast Brave New Words, joins the show to unpack the research behind effective progressive messaging. She explains why most campaign messaging is guesswork rather than science, and lays out the core framework that testing shows actually works: start with a shared value, name the problem second, then offer a solution and call to action.
Key topics covered include why fear-based messaging backfires for progressive audiences even though it energizes the right, the difference between "taking the temperature" (traditional polling) and "changing the temperature" (message testing that shows where audiences can be moved), and why messages need to be memorable enough that supporters repeat them to friends and family rather than just agree with them in a survey.
Shenker-Osorio also discusses her Race Class Narrative research, which found that messages explicitly naming race outperformed race-neutral economic messaging across the board, including with persuadable voters. She closes with advice on countering figures like Trump: rather than amplifying opposition messaging by constantly rebutting it, campaigns win by relentlessly stating what they're for.
Learn more about her research at asocommunications.com and hear case studies from real campaigns on her podcast, Brave New Words, at bravenewwordspod.com.
SHOW NOTES
Anat Shenker-Osorio is a leading researcher in progressive messaging and communications with her research and writing being featured in a myriad of publications including The Atlantic, Boston Globe, Salon, and The Guardian, among others. She is also the host of the new podcast Brave New Words, where she takes listeners behind the scenes of different campaigns and what goes into crafting a winning message. Tune in to hear Anat’s advice for progressive organizers on how to communicate your message to the masses in the most effective way.
ASO Communications – This is Anat’s website and where you can learn more about her and her research. If you want to go straight to her research you should follow this link. https://asocommunications.com/
Brave New Words Podcast – You can go behind the scenes on different political campaigns and efforts with Anat and listen in on how different tactics in messaging were used and their outcomes. You can also find this podcast wherever you listen to podcasts. https://bravenewwordspod.com
-
Anat Shenker-Osorio 1:03
Yeah. So two reasons or two ideas. Number one, uh when you actually look under the hood of most progressive campaigns, and here I am revealing a secret, a not so dirty secret, that the way that a lot of the messaging is done is sort of just a hold up a finger in the wind. I know, we'll call it that, or I like that slogan, or you know what, that URL wasn't taken. And having studied linguistics and language, I knew, I know, that there is actually a systematic way, and there are sets of knowable things around which messages resonate and which don't, and that it doesn't need to be simply a guessing game or whatever kind of occurs to the author, who is almost, almost, almost never at all like the intended audience, which is one of the core mistakes that we make. We don't realize that our hardcore advocates are not actually our intended audiences, and so the messages that we create don't necessarily actually work for the goals that we have. And then the second reason is that when you're doing campaigning, when you are a progressive campaigner, there is very little that is under your control. You can't control what the opposition says, you can't control how much money they have to say it, you can't control how the media reports or what they choose to focus on. But the words that come out of your mouth or are typed by your own fingers are entirely under your control. And so for me, I focus on language and narrative and messaging because it is one of those very, very few things that is entirely under our domain.
Benn Marine 2:48
For organizers that are listening to this and maybe don't have access to someone like you who has that much knowledge and re and uh resources, what what would you recommend to them when they start thinking about crafting a message and and kind of promoting their cause?
Anat Shenker-Osorio 3:03
Yeah. I think I mean I the easiest answer is that anything I am allowed to make public in terms of my research, and I really work hard to try to write open source contracts so that everything can be made public. Whatever research results I'm allowed to release, I always do, and they hang out on my website, and I'm sure um we can share that with your listeners. It's just ASO My Initials Communications.com, ASO Communications.com, and there's a research tab, and everything's hanging out there. But the kind of fundamentals that I would transmit are, and I often like to joke that I can reduce progressive messaging to three sentences. By progressive messaging, I mean present-day progressive messaging. And those three sentences are boy, have I got a problem for you. This is the Titanic, would you like to buy a ticket? And we're the losing team, we lose a lot. Also, we lost recently, so you should join us. So if that is standard progressive messaging, which I'm claiming that it is, you want to do the opposite. And some of the core lessons for folks who are just getting started or trying to figure all of this out, or frankly, folks who have been at this for a very, very long time but need to break those bad default habits, is number one, ordering effects. So what we find in testing over and over and over again, and this is pretty much true across issues, is that the order in which you present the message is really what matters. And first and foremost, you want to begin your message with a shared value and not with a problem. So instead of saying, you know, this horrific thing is happening, or uh there's a war on women, or union density is at its lowest in decades, or you know, the climate is cooked and we're totally and completely screwed. Instead of beginning that opening salvo with boy, have I got a problem for you, because FYI, people got 99 problems and they don't want yours. Most people are not attracted to boy, have I got a problem for you. We want to begin with a shared value. So for example, no matter our differences, most of us want pretty similar things. Or no matter what we look like or where we come from, most of us work hard for our families. Or whether we're white, black, or brown, Latinx or Asian, most of us seek to treat others the way we want to be treated. So you begin with that opening value, you've hooked the person in, and they're like, okay, that sounds good. And it's at that point, second, that you name the problem. And then from there, you move into your solution and call to action. That is kind of the framework of an effective message.
Benn Marine 5:54
And you talk a lot on your website and even your podcast, which I want to make sure we we give a shout out to the new new word new word, brave new words, right?
Anat Shenker-Osorio 6:05
Brave new words, yes.
Benn Marine 6:07
Brave new words, yeah.
Anat Shenker-Osorio 6:08
You talk a little more about that.
Benn Marine 6:10
Yeah, I I I I as we go further on, I'd love to hear more about it. At this moment, I'm curious though, you talk a lot about how, and even now mentioning how we talk a lot about opposition and and no and can't and don't, and how that's not uh super helpful. And so I'm curious how I think part of reframing words is also reframing the way we think about things, too. And so I'm curious if you have advice for folks on how to reframe instead of being anti-something, being pro the other side of it.
Anat Shenker-Osorio 6:41
Yeah, it's a great question. So it's a massive, massive problem, um, our tendency to be a no and a don't and a stop and a can't. And so when we, for example, flip, and we've tested this, between saying and family separation, and detention, abolish ice, all of which I hope it's clear to everybody listening, I 100% agree with. That's not the issue. But all of those are what we oppose. And what we find is that what we fight, we feed. And the more that we reaffirm these terrible, horrible things, the more people either tune out because they're not sure what they're supposed to do with this horrible information, or the more that they feel just disempowered, like the whole world is going to hell, because let's face it, it kind of is. And what is my vote going to do, right? It's disempowering people because whatever solution we're proposing just doesn't feel covenserate to the response. So when we test the difference between and this stop that and say create a fair immigration process that respects all families, we find that the difference is massive.
Benn Marine 7:56
And so with that, I'm curious about because I feel like at the root of don't stop those language bits is it's kind of utilizing fear as a tactic, right? And it seems like fear worked for the right. And and I'm just curious to understand like I'm curious your thoughts around fear as a tactic and how it pertains to that language. Or maybe they're not related at all. I'm not sure. I'm curious your thoughts on that.
Anat Shenker-Osorio 8:26
No, it's a great question. So a version of this question, and I don't know if this is what you're asking, but a version of this question that I get frequently is well, the right uses fear all the time. And it seems to be working beautifully for them. And that is very, very hard to refuse because guess what? That is a true story. And so what happens with our side is that we believe, hey, they're trading in fear and they're peddling this anger and hatred. We should trade in fear because fear is obviously incredibly motivating to people. But what that fundamentally misunderstands is that our task is very different from their task. Their task is to rile up their base to repeat and repeat and repeat their tropes in order to persuade the middle. Our task is to rile up our base in order to repeat and repeat and repeat and persuade the middle. And at a fundamental psychological level, and the testing shows this, it's also just common sense, the makeup of their base, the human beings, and the way that they are wired and the way that they are triggered and the way that they are motivated and made to act, is just fundamentally different from our base because we are talking about a different group of human beings. So where fear is incredibly motivating to a conservative base, fear is incredibly suppressive to a progressive base.
Benn Marine 10:02
That's so neat. Um I'm curious too. So another piece that I, in kind of reading through um some of your work, I saw that you have this kind of phrase of don't take the temperature, change it. Can you which I think is really cool. I'm I'm curious, can you speak a little bit to that and what that means?
Anat Shenker-Osorio 10:20
Yeah. So frequently what happens, for example, you know, I'm an empiricist, so I live in the realm of public opinion research and quantifying things. And frequently, when you look at the way that the left, whether that be democratic pollsters or progressives more broadly, do public opinion research, it is a form of taking the temperature. So let me give you a very specific, for instance. Years ago, when there were groups of people who really wanted to take on the fight to raise the minimum wage, they did a bunch of public opinion polling, and not surprisingly, a majority of American voters uh supported a $12 an hour minimum wage, but they did not support $15. 15 was not, you know, anywhere near the 50% threshold that that we expect for a majority. And so the mainstream large economic groups were like, no, public's not there. We can't do that. Now, thank goodness these scrappy, uh, really, really effective smaller groups were like, look, polling's not about taking the temperature. It's not about figuring out where people are, it's about figuring out where they're capable of going and what it is we need to say, supported by our words and images and relentless repetition, we need to move them there. And so where the national groups were not willing to have a quote fight for 15, the smaller groups were like, fine, we'll take it to Seattle Tacoma and we'll win there. We'll take it to the San Francisco Bay Area, we'll win there, we'll take it to LA, we'll take it to California, we'll take it to New York. And sure enough, lo and behold, a couple of years later, the majority of people in the U.S., because New York and California are very populous states, as you know, have a minimum wage of $15 an hour, and it's sort of become the new default norm. That is the difference between doing polling to take the temperature, where are people, and message testing to understand where are people capable of going and what is it we need to say to get them there.
Benn Marine 12:29
So do you feel like there is an important place for polling in some of these like national discussions of messaging, or do you feel like that's a completely separate tool for a a different purpose?
Anat Shenker-Osorio 12:41
Look, it's important to know what you're up against and where people are. You need to understand kind of what you need to overcome. You need to be able to disaggregate and be able to see in this subgroup of people, whether that be by age, whether that be by race, whether that be by geography, you need to be able to see your terrain because none of us are living in a world of infinity dollars. And so you need to know who you're going to target to be your base and repeat your message. You need to know who the gettable persuadables are so that you can sort of concentrate your firepower on them. So, I mean, uh of course there's a role for polling and message testing, what I'm calling message testing, does not is not that dissimilar in format, right? We're still doing giant national surveys. It's just a question of how you interpret the results. You know, do you look at an answer around a $12 or $15 an hour minimum wage and say, oh, that's it, we're not gonna do this campaign? Um, or do you look at that and say, look, these are the people we do have, these are the people that would carry the message, these are the spots where we can start with this. Do you use that public opinion research as a tool for organizing and as a tool for constructing a narrative that actually is gonna change people's minds?
Benn Marine 14:02
So in terms of the the the persuadable middle and then also the the repeat piece of kind of grabbing the base, have you found that there are or has any have any studies shown that there are particular like media channels that work best? Like is TV better than radio, better than digital, better than, you know, um Netflix, or would you say?
Anat Shenker-Osorio 14:30
Like Yeah, so I'm gonna sort of come at that question a slightly different way, and then I'll I'll come to precisely what you asked. So I think it's easiest to think of it, and my um colleague on an immigrant rights message test, Ryan Clayton, um who was a Democratic strategist, he likes to say a message is like a baton that needs to be passed from person to person to person. And if it gets dropped anywhere along that way, it it by definition it's not persuasive, right? You tested it in the laboratory environment, the test tube of a survey, but no one would say it. And so by definition, it's not persuasive because nobody heard it. So as far as channels, I will get to that in a second, but honestly, what we see over and over again, and I'm sure that your listeners will find this familiar, is that as soon as a message is shared by a kind of uh suspect source, it is suspicious. And so what I mean by that is, you know, when such and such restaurant in your hometown says you shouldn't eat here, the tacos are delicious, you look at that and you say, that could be true, that could not be true. It's literally your job to tell me that your food is delicious because you are the restaurant. The same is true when SDIU or another labor union says labor unions are important and this is why you should support us, or when you know, the fight for 15 says $15 an hour, or when Tierla or United We Dream or National Immigrant Law Center or whomever says, you know, this should be your stance on immigrant rights, or when Nay Rell says this is how you should feel about abortion. As soon as that message is coming from a source that is understood to make, you know, you have to say that. That's literally your job, right? So the Democratic candidate says you should vote for me, you're like, of course you're saying that, that's literally your job. That is very different than your cousin saying to you, or your sibling, or your neighbor. And so what we find more than anything is that in this profusion of millions and millions and millions of different information sources and channels and people being bombarded with a constant signal of information, the more that you can actually get the base to repeat a message so that the person that you're hearing from is a person you actually already know and is a person that you trust and you don't associate as like, well, of course you're saying that, you're on the campaign. Um, so the most effective channel is actually getting people to repeat. And this is something that we saw very, very effectively in marriage equality. This is the difference between when we used to argue about quote unquote gay marriage and say, you know, gay marriage is important because people need to be able to file their taxes jointly, or people need to be able to visit their loved one in a hospital. Our base agreed with that message, but they weren't going to repeat it because a human being has never stood in line at the grocery store and said, you know, I was just thinking the other day about being a joint filer. But they would say love is love. That is a sentence that the average person would actually say. And so the greatest channel is actually that. It's fight for 15, it's love is love, it's people who work for a living ought to make a living. It's what the other side was able to do with make America Great Again. That slogan doesn't work if the only people repeating it, never mind if it's Twitter, never mind if it's Facebook, never mind if it's TV, never mind if it's all of the above. Make America Great Again does not work as a slogan. If the only people saying it are the campaign, the base has to say it to the persuadables.
Benn Marine 18:26
So how do you manifest that? Is that about is that about really choosing the r like the right words, or how like how do you manifest that organic word of mouth spread?
Anat Shenker-Osorio 18:40
Yeah. I mean, I look, I would love to tell you there's a magical formula. You know, that's as nonsense as someone telling you there's a magical formula for making things go viral. And I know that there are people who like huckster a career, they probably do, you know, the the weird come to my seminar next to the airport. Nobody can tell you with definitive, like, this will go viral and this will I mean you can't, right? That's anyone who is selling you that is is is selling you nonsense. But number one, we can test for that. We can test inside of our giant messaging experiment for things that the base will not just agree with, but actually want to repeat. And what we find is that that is one of the fundamental differences between the way that the left and the right, and by the left I mean not including me, because I don't do this, but the w the difference between the way that the left and right use public opinion research. And again, it is this distinction between taking the temperature and changing the temperature. And what I mean by that is that when the right does a test, and this is something Frank once, who is their like big, you know, I mean, he's since sort of distanced himself because he's a never Trumper, but he was the architect behind the contract for America. He was the guy that came up with such nonsense as the Blue Skies Initiative, No Child Left Behind, etc., all of their kind of big phrases. What he says is, I dialed for the red meat. So he looks first and foremost at a message, is the base very excited about it and are they gonna repeat it? On the other side, what democratic pollsters tend to do is they score a message by its overall number in the sample. So they look at everyone in the sample and they say, okay, out of 1,000 people or the 2,000 people or however many people they're testing it with, what is the message that gets the highest overall score? By definition, if that's what you're measuring, you are gonna get milk toast. Because if you're looking for a thing to say that everyone kind of sorta agrees with, then you couldn't possibly be saying anything that your base is gonna be excited to repeat. And so that is the difference between, for example, in the economic justice fight, saying we should pay people more because that will grow our economy, which is a classic milktoast message. The base agrees but won't repeat it, and saying people who work for a living ought to earn a living, having a fundamental fairness and moral argument, which the base will repeat. So part of it is that you actually need to build that into your testing, and yeah, you need to come up with short things, and then finally you need to say fewer things and say them more often.
Benn Marine 21:38
I'm curious what of of all your studies and and work and research, what has been kind of the most surprising find?
Anat Shenker-Osorio 21:46
Um I mean, it's no longer surprising to me because I have spent so much time with it, but if I remember back to when we initially did it, so most of the work. That I was engaged in over late 2017 and 2018 was a project we call the race class narrative, which again, all of the information is public, it's all on my site, which was a project around how we talk about race and link into class. And I think the most surprising thing about that was that we tested a whole bunch of things. And what we found is that across the board, not just with our base, not just with progressive advocates, but with persuadables, every message we tested that explicitly named race outperformed colorblind economic populism. I was surprised at the strength of that.
Benn Marine 22:41
Wow, I'm so curious. What would you say? So you're saying even so the like that persuadable middle was on board with that too. Are there, is there like so for folks that in progressive circles are organizing, what would you how can they best utilize that knowledge in terms of like the conversations they're having with that persuadable middle?
Anat Shenker-Osorio 23:01
It's a great question. So basically, when folks are talking about to, you know, that proverbial uncle that I guess white people all seem to have, right? We need to recognize that politics is not solitaire. And what I mean by that is that our messages don't exist in a vacuum. We do not have the luxury of people just hearing what we say. In fact, people are poisoned constantly but by what the other side is saying. And what we see is that what the other side is saying is a constant, relentless race baiting, right? It is the fundamental architecture of a right-wing message. So it's not just simply the case that talking about race is a moral imperative because issues of racial justice are basically issues of human rights, and it's only because we live in a dysfunctional country that we allow them to be called quote unquote identity politics, which again normal people would call human rights, right? Being able to make it home and not get shot by police is not an identity issue, it's a survival issue. I mean, that is also tied up in your identity. So if we are not attending to race, then what is happening is that the only thing that this conflicted middle is hearing about race and about gender and about other forms of identity comes from the other side. It's not like they don't hear anything at all about it if we're quiet about it. All they get is this ugly, divisive, hateful, horrible rhetoric. And so if you're trying to contend with these persuadables, you have to be able to speak openly about race. Otherwise, you're not effectively countering what the other side is saying. Now, as far as what that actually sounds like in practice, there are lots and lots and lots of example messages on those cheat sheets that are on the site. But basically the architecture of what we call a winning race class message goes like this. It begins, number one, in that shared value, as I mentioned before, that and in this case it explicitly names race. So no matter what we look like or where we come from, most of us want pretty similar things. Or another way to start it is whether we're white, black, or brown, uh, most of us work hard for our families. Then we move to the problem. But today, a wealthy few and the politicians they pay for divide us from each other, shaming and blaming new immigrants, this is one, for instance, so that we'll look the other way while they hand the spoils to their rich friends. Basically, what we're doing in the problem statement is we are narrating that interwoven reality of racial and economic justice, that the reason that the other side has weaponized race and used scapegoating and used hateful, horrible rhetoric and policies, not just rhetoric, is both to hurt black and brown folks and other people of color, but also to aid and abet their economic plunder. This is what allows us to hold up and bring central issues of racial justice while at the same time making it clear to whites in our audiences who may not be understanding how is it possible that I'm an ex-coal miner in West Virginia, or I'm a, you know, person who doesn't have their job in the upper Midwest, or I'm a person who is contending with, you know, not being able to pay for health care, and you keep telling me the problems are just for black and brown people. How am I supposed to understand that? That's what the race class narrative does. It explains how the weaponization of race and the use of scapegoating is a tool to primarily hurt people of color, but also get away with economic harms against all of us.
Benn Marine 26:58
Thank you for that. I think that's that's super helpful framework for sure. And I'm curious uh kind of moving into the I feel like that kind of feeds into the what you what you fight you feed, right? Like I feel like that's kind of like what we were talking a little bit about earlier, about how the the no and don't feeds into that fear and anger. And that's an I think sounds like another example of how to flip that on its head a bit. Would you say that's true?
Anat Shenker-Osorio 27:24
Yeah, and actually what we we tested very specific things. For example, the call to action being joined together across our communities versus joined together across racial differences. And we found that the latter, the explicit naming of joined together across racial differences is more effective. People are aware that racial differences are alive and well. You know, it's sort of like that funny thing where parents think, you know, you can't swear in front of the kids like somehow, or you can't talk about sex because that's where kids are going to learn about sex. I hate to tell you, kids are not learning about sex from when it gets mentioned in puberty ed in whatever grade that is, right? So us saying joined together across racial differences is not like, wait, what? There are racial differences? I had no idea.
Benn Marine 28:14
Right. That makes sense. Um tell us a little bit about your podcast.
Anat Shenker-Osorio 28:19
Um, yeah, thank you. Um, so my podcast, Brave New Words, is um the first season, which we released all at once, uh um just now, is six episodes of campaigns that we have won. So it takes you backstage with amazing kick-ass campaigners, ad writers, messaging people, organizers, and it reveals how and why we won things. So one episode details Jacinda Arden becoming Prime Minister of New Zealand in an incredibly quick seven-week race. Um, one details the repeal of the ban on abortion in Ireland, one details the use of this race class narrative to beat back against Islamophobia and anti-immigrant race baiting to win a whole slew of races in Minnesota. One of them is about um winning police reform in Washington state, et cetera, et cetera. And so in each case, um it's a whole story, and you hear from multiple people, you hear the ads that we wrote, you hear what the opposition said, you hear in some cases the actual testing that we did, and we walk you through this was the losing message, this was the winning message, I peel back the layers in terms of ideas from persuasion and perception and cognitive science as to why a certain message works and another one doesn't. Um, so it's a really sort of hopeful, optimistic, progressive values and views not only are viable, they do in fact win. And here are real-world examples of that.
Benn Marine 30:03
Awesome. I know I'm really excited to check it out, and I'll certainly uh link to it in the show notes for sure. Uh any other advice or or thoughts that you want to share with the audience?
Anat Shenker-Osorio 30:13
Yeah, I think, you know, look, it's it's let's let's be honest, right? It's a very hard moment. It's been a hard moment for a very, very long time. It's an especially hard moment for the people who are being relentlessly targeted in the most draconian and horrible ways. And I know that feeling like, you know, we can have hope and we can have a positive message sometimes just feels Pollyanish and kind of goofy and silly. And I understand the attachment to narrating harms and horrors. But what we know over and over again is, you know, there's a reason why Martin Luther King did not get famous for saying, I have a complaint, right? Even in the darkest of times, there has to be a dream, there has to be a thing to motivate people to be for. And so when we present ourselves merely as a resistance, as powerful and as amazing as it is, most people do not want to exist in a perpetual state of resistance. What they want is to be part of creating something wonderful and good, not merely ameliorating harms. And when we speak about what we're for and what we believe, as opposed to constantly talking about how horrible our opposition, how relentless, how big, how powerful, that is what actually gets people on board and sustains their participation.
Benn Marine 31:36
I'm curious too your thoughts on just kind of the our the present moment right now where we have the democratic candidates running and all of that. Do you feel like do you feel like the conversation has shifted for the better since d in terms of the democratic side and and the progressive side since the loss in 2016?
Anat Shenker-Osorio 31:57
Yeah, I do. Um, and maybe I'm, you know, trying to comfort myself. Certainly not above a little, you know, self-delusion, right? Everybody needs a little bit of that. Uh but no, genuinely as a person who studies and experiments with language, and also as a person who is a a pretty constant consumer of public opinion from many, many, many different sources, I think it's undeniable that there has been a shift. I think we saw a lot of that shift um in 2018 toward the victories that we saw. We see that shift in kind of the younger, the quote unquote freshman class in Congress that is much, much more about affirming what we're for, is much more audacious in uh the most wonderful of ways, and is much more about, you know, saying things that the base is going to be excited about and want to repeat and make common sense. Um, you know, I think that there the the democratic field in 2020 is massive and it has its good bits and it has its horrendously, you know, it has its tired old bits, which are still harkening back to um a world that does not exist anymore and rightfully so. But yeah, I think that there is a lot of shift toward being explicit about race. I think there is a shift toward presenting an affirmative vision of what we're for and not just merely lending Trump more airtime. Because honestly, when we're talking about him, the story is about him.
Benn Marine 33:33
So would you say then the best way to combat Trump at this point is to just turn off your TV and not not not listen or give him the the airtime?
Anat Shenker-Osorio 33:40
Um, what I would say is the best way to combat Trump is to just without hesitation and without sort of just to relentlessly repeat what we are for and what we believe. One of the things that we did, for example, and this is in one of the podcast episodes, this is in the Greater Than Fear episode in Minnesota, in the midst of organizing there, when we had come up with our branding, which was Greater Than Fear, with the tagline in Minnesota we're better off together, Trump came to Rochester, which is a city in Minnesota. And the default setting, as it always is when Trump is coming to our hometowns, is to have an anti-Trump rally. And of course, I understand that default. But instead, we were able to talk into having a greater than fear rally, which the local and the national press that travels with the president covered as such. And to have the spokespeople at that rally instead of saying Trump is horrible, here's why he's horrible, he's also horrible, and he did this horrible thing and also this terrible thing. I mean, the sad truth of Trump is that he has turned us all into cats looking at a laser pointer. And every single thing he does, we're over there and we're talking about that, and we're over there and we're talking about that. And that robs us of precious airtime to talk about the things that we want and what we are for, whether that be the Green New Deal, whether that be Medicare for All, whether that be creating a fair immigration process that respects all families, all of the above. Um, so the best way to combat Trump is to not talk about Trump.
Benn Marine 35:16
That's awesome. Oh my goodness. Well, thank you so much. And I feel like I could ask you questions all day. Um thank you so much. I really appreciate your time.
Anat Shenker-Osorio 35:24
Oh, thank you.
Benn Marine 35:25
Any other resources or links folks should know about?
Anat Shenker-Osorio 35:29
Um, I guess the only other thing I would say is that on that you can while you can get Brave New Words in all the places that people get the podcast, if you actually go to the website for um if you go to the website for the podcast itself, which is Brave New Wordspod.com, each episode has its own page and a research that we did um where applicable is there, the ads that we ran. So if you want to go in deeper and understand, you know, why Jacinda won in New Zealand or how we beat back Islamophobia in Minnesota or you know how they passed police reform in Washington, etc., you can go there and find more resources.
Benn Marine 36:12
Awesome. And I'll be sure to link to all that in the show notes as well. Great. Well, thank you so much.
Anat Shenker-Osorio 36:19
No, thank you. I really appreciate it.
Benn Marine 36:25
Thank you so much for tuning in, friends. Uh subscriber every listen to podcast, and we review it. As always, you can find links to content.com.com, for 15 minutes, and it's completely off with all of that. So for six forward to as always.
