campaign strategy

BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT: Future campaigns can no longer afford to just find the right phrases. We have to find the right arguments and the right way to communicate them.

Lately, a lot of the discussion has rightfully centered on policy. Earlier, Jon Henke asked us to consider what policies we should advocate and support. I've spent some time outlining a theme for a new set of items we can go forward with: the Agenda of Equal Opportunity. Although I would much rather talk about substance than rhetoric, I wanted to take a break from the policy discussion and discuss campaign messaging.

Max Borders has a quite comprehensive four part series on the "Art of Persuasion," analyzing the importance of merging rational policy discussion with critical ideas in communication: emotional wedges, metaphors & models, typology and imagery. What also caught my attention was a December 15 Roll Call op-ed from pollster David Winston, responding to fellow pollster Stuart Rothenberg, rejecting attack-based campaigns:

The truth is, voters don’t want to hear why the other guy is bad. They want to know why you are a better choice. People want hear how candidates will govern, how they will solve problems and what they really stand for.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) put it this way: “Wal-Mart doesn’t get ahead by attacking Sears but by offering better value.” In the past two elections, Republicans failed to win over voters because they failed to tell them how they would address their concerns.

The GOP has spent the past 10 years and hundreds of millions of dollars trying to drive up Democrats’ negatives. Sometimes they succeeded, but rather than solidifying the GOP’s majority coalition, over time, this self-defeating strategy made it permanently vulnerable. Republicans found themselves with razor-thin victories, no mandate to govern and growing unfavorable ratings.

Don't get me wrong. There is still value in opposition research and compare-contrast messaging. But Winston is right in that a campaign's opposition, or attacks on an opposition, can't be the foundation of a campaign's message. In fact, an attack-based campaign is really a campaign that's playing defense instead of offense. This seems counter-intuitive, but the reality is that campaigns founded on attacking their opponents means that they either have nearly nothing substantive to say about their guy, or their opponent's message is better at resonating with voters. Or both.

The extension of Winston's point is this: campaigns (and candidates) can tend to get too intellectual or quite anti-intellectual, and the GOP's problem in the past few cycles has been the latter. Campaigns need to formulate and execute a messaging strategy that's not ten steps below the voter nor ten steps ahead of the voter. Rather, campaigns need to outline a substantive agenda, and find a way to communicate that agenda that's only one step above the voter.

In an earlier post, I briefly went over some "Rules of Debate," describing my time as volunteer debate coach at a local high school in Alaska. (I debated in high school and college as well. Yes, I'm a nerd.) I taught my students that in any debate of any format, great substance always has to come before great style. Great style should never make bad substance good, but it can greatly enhance good substance. Let's go over some pointers that I've previously given to my debate students and see how they can apply to campaign messaging. (Continue reading below the fold.)

Disclaimer: I don't intend on this post being some sort of cookie-cutter strategy. I know that messaging depends on the audience and that all politics is truly local. This is why voter indentification, voter persuasion and GOTV efforts need to be integrated now more than ever.

With less than one month to go,  John McCain has few winning moves, and Barack Obama is headed to "Check Mate" on the chess board of Election 2008.  

What is McCain to do? 

Two McCain advantages remain.  And they are true advantages, not bloated attacks on Obama or overused GOP talking points.

1. Senate Record
One reason the voting public distrusts  and dislikes politicians is that politicians fail to follow through on election promises.  For fence-sitting voters, especially those bombarded by campaign ads and phone calls, it's hard to believe either candidate will do what they say. 

With two Senators at the top of each party's ticket, the candidate's disadvantage is the public's advantage -- a record by which to evaluate each candidate, to predict how they will perform in office.  

Obama claims he will give 95% of taxpayers a tax cut.  He claims that he will reach across the aisle and find compromise solutions to our nation's challenges.  He claims he will move us closer to energy independence.  He claims he cares about Main Street and will hold Wall Street accountable.  But what has he done while in the Senate to achieve these goals? One look at Obama's past votes and legislative behavior, and it's clear his campaign promises are inconsistent with his record reality.  

And what about the "Present" votes while in the Illinois State Senate.  What kind of commitment did that show?

McCain's must be accountable to a much longer record, but it's one that is consistent with the domestic and foreign policy agendas outlined on the campaign trail. When it comes to reaching across the aisle, as Mike Murphy said on Meet the Press today, "You look at any piece of bipartisan legislation in the Senate that got done the last five years, John McCain's been the quarterback ... McCain is a guy who can get things done in Washington with two parties." 

2. Runaway Liberal Agenda
Also on MTP today, Murphy referred to the "runaway Democratic train" that comes with an Obama presidency.  

How many moderates and independents would prefer a Congress to have limits, the checks and balances so cleverly built into our political system?  With Congress' abysmal approval rating, scary is the thought of a liberal Democratic president putting forth an agenda that Congress will ratify quickly and easily. 

With a liberal and a moderate as our choices, even left-leaners may consider a moderate out of fear of the reckless decisions made possible by a Congress who says "Yes, We Can" to every proposal the liberal president desires. 

(McCain should take care in presenting this as a problem with an Obama presidency.  Voters don't like hand-wringing and demagoguing either.  Nonetheless, McCain can stand on his record as someone who forces compromise, which is better than forcing unchecked bad policy.)

McCain must try these two moves now ... or never. 

Early in this campaign we were treated to the Obama camp promising to "expand the field" and campaign hard to win traditionally Red States.www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/1/144541/9616 

Even Michael Barone said to "throw out the map" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/throw_out_the_maps_in_2008.html  thinking we would have an "open field election" (I questioned this at the time, BTW)

The sports analogy would be akin to a spread shotgun formation, where a football team tries to use the whole field to set up one-on-one matchups and provide the running game lateral room for big plays, while enabling receivers to get quickly upfield for deep passes. 

Speed, elusiveness, and finesse are essential to executing this offensive philosophy. It's hard for a inexperienced quarterback to succeed in this gameplan, because such a triggerman will tend to get sacked, throw picks, or put the ball on the ground a lot., instead of knowing when to just heave the ball in the stands.    

Obama had the chance to go this route by choosing Tim Kaine, Evan Bayh, or Kathleen Sebelius. He didn't.

Instead by picking a running mate from a very "Blue" state it is apparent that Team Obama will be narrowing the field and trying the old "smashmouth"  football approach of trying to grind out a messy victory in the mud.

In the power running formation, one tries to overload the point of attack with blockers and outmuscle the defenders on a narrow slice of field.  The odds for disaster are lower (fewer interceptions, sacks or fumbles) but it is hard to score often or win big over a credible opponent in this fashion. (One problem the Obama camp has with this plan is their candidate lacks any bonafides on old time Democrat bread-and-butter economic issues) 

The best electoral argument for Biden is he may help a bit in PA. But there were better picks to do that,even. Surely Ed Rendell or Bob Casey,Jr. have more vote pulling appeal in PA.http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/PA/   But Rendell and Casey lacked foreign policy experience. Evidently trying to fill this hole was more important than going to a better electoral choice. Having been seen a lot on Philly TV and growing up a half century ago in Scranton is thin gruel to help Obama in a state he got hammered in during the primaries, and will almost certainly cost him the presidency were he to lose it in the general election.. 

Biden offers no help in any 2004 red state that I can identify. Hell, even Dick Gephardt might''ve helped in MO if Obama wanted to appeal to tired old DC career politicians.  

No, Biden was an effort to firm up the Democrat base and grind out a win along the traditional Democrat/Republican scrimmage line.  Which is what we now have at summer's end http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

Instead of the "we can lose Ohio and still win" meme, the Obama camp has pulled its ads in seven red states it was working hard in all summer. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/50084.html

Florida and Virginia are surprising, although Obama has been unopposed on the TV  in FL, dropped over $5M , yet  failed to overtake McCain. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121850408634131921.html  I presume he'll be back in those places, but I suspect they have thrown in the towel in the other five.  Perhaps the reason Obama made such a boring VP choice is they have made the strategic decision that they simply can't execute the "big play" in red states, having lost ground in many despite massive effort. 

No, there has not been a huge surge of Obama Republicans, or evangelicals for Obama. There are just a lot of mostly young and well educated Democrats for Obama. The strategy he is left with is to take the 2004 John Kerry voting pattern and put it on steroids.   This will amount to trying to squeeze another 120,000 net votes out of Cuyahoga and Franklin counties,http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/   or gin up turnout in Denver and Boulder http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/co/prescounties/    and hope another state like NM or NV  flips.

This will be exacerbated as certainly some voters in VA and IN will be disappointed that Biden was picked over well liked local officeholders. Obama had recently lost some ground in both states  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/in/indiana_mccain_vs_obama-604.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/va/virginia_mccain_vs_obama-551.html and I suspect Obama will find IN drifting out of reach soon.

Especially if Team Mac puts a few hundred GRP behind this ad in the Richmond and Indianapolis ADI's http://www.everydayrepublican.com/2008/08/23/joe-biden-on-barack-obama/

The Biden pick will relieve McCain of worries that his base electoral votes will be at risk. The freedom of decision now rest with his team, who can now decide whether it is their turn to open up the field with an unconventional choice, or look for a conventional pick who can enhance our vote totals in the traditional battleground states and media markets     

I have no gripes with Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty taking it to Obama-Biden on the traditional line of scrimmage, but boy am I feelin former champion women's jock Sarah Palin about now.

 As I prepare to speak at today's "The First 21st Century Campaign" forum, sponsored by Google and National Journal, I can't help but note how much has changed in the less than a decade since the Y2K scare.  

On this site, many of us lament about the lack of progress on the part of our political entities and figures, while the world around them is changing drastically.  At least technology and media are changing drastically. 

Mark Hemingway at NRO opined on Obama's huge infrastructure and got this rejoinder.

"I really found this post lacking specifics.  Based on the primaries, all evidence points to the Obama campaign being a well oiled machine.  They ran a bottom up campaign, with extremely well run field offices. "