The group that successfully frames the debate wins, period, no matter what the debate is about.

We saw this play out in the debate about extending the "Bush tax cuts." Here are two ways I saw politicians framing this debate:

1)      You start with your point of reference as "now". "Now" is considered to be normal. Right now we are paying a certain set of tax rates. In January if the law that sets these rates is allowed to expire, then our future tax rates will be higher than they are now. If politicians decide to extend our current tax rates so that they do not change, then we keep the same tax rates we currently have.

 2)      You start with your point of reference as the past, "before the rates we have now." The past with its higher rates is taken as "normal" or even good.  In January if the law that sets these rates is allowed to expire then our rates will go back to what they were, back to normal. This point of view is almost always conflated with the notion that cutting taxes cost us money, therefore not allowing those tax cuts to expire will continue to cost us money.

Using different frames of reference allows politicians to make statements that completely contradict other politicians and they all feel like they are telling the truth.  For any given political debate ask yourself what frame of reference is gaining the most traction with the public and on Capitol Hill. Whatever group or political party is behind that frame of reference is the one that is winning. If you can frame the debate you win.