Election Endgame: Enough Already
The Republicans have entered the election endgame. They expect slightly reduced, and temporary, inflationary pressures to convert a few people - but primarily they are in GOTV (Get Out The Voted) and KITV (Keep In The Vote) mode. They want their voters to be motivated, and they want to demotivate marginal voters on the other side, without demotivating their own. This means that they are going to talk about three things: Democrats are terrorists, Democrats hate the economy and individual Democrats are soft on terrorism and taxes. It is a simple plan.
The Democratic Party is still trying to figure out who its voters are, and flails about with slogans and props. Instead, the Democrats should enter the endgame and talk about a simple set of points: Iraq is idiocy, wages are terrible, and the corrupt Republicans are responsible for both. They too should be engaged in KITV - that is, attacking Republicans for not being Republican enough.
The reason is simple. The muddled moderates will be persuaded that whatever they think of "tax cuts" in the abstract, that the people who have sunk a decade in the sands of Iraq can't be trusted to do anything. The important play is to convince the angry Republicans to stay home, that this election isn't going to bring them closer to their real goals. This is going to be helped by the long term reactionary rhetoric that is trying to pretend that Bush isn't a reactionary. Corruption links the two - it is corruption that brought us failure in Iraq and failure in the economy.
It also works on the state level: Democratic governors can state that whatever problems there are on a local level, are because of the big picture. They can state where they are running to unseat Republicans that the Republican state government has not done anything to ameliorate bad national policies.
But the edge must always be about two points: getting someone who is going to vote Democratic to vote, and getting someone who would vote Republican if he were to vote, to not to vote. The people in the middle need to take two images - Iraq and falling wages - into the voting booth.
Iraq. And falling real wages. And one more thing - which I will get to.
People fixate on the Contract with America, because that is the last nationalizing message that they remember. Some may remember "Get government off of people's backs". However, Democrats won the previous realigning elections - 1958, 1964 and 1974 based on very similar strategies to the ones I am outlining. 1958 was about jobs and wages, 1964 was about prosperity and 1974 about corruption. The Contract on America wasn't about convincing people, it was about motivating people. It was an endgame GOTV and KITV strategy, not a message strategy. It turned people who were "wrong track" believers into Republican voters, and it kept Democratic voters home.
The backdrop of unfinished business, the "issues" that clutter recent statements from the Democratic Party are not effective GOTV or KITV. Health care, energy, security - all of these are matters that people have made up their mind. The idea is to give your people a shot of adrenaline.
That shot, as Josh Micah Marshall and others have pointed out - is Social Security. The simple meme to tell voters is that "Bush has a secret plan to cancel Social Security." It really is that simple - people need to go to the polls believing that if they didn't their Social Security checks are in danger. Since this is true, it is easy to say. Sure you can throw in Republican dirty tricks over 911, and the little issues like improving health care access on the margins. But that is the job of individual candidates in individual districts, each of which has its own balance of concerns.
Since this is a simple point, it isn't well served by reminding people of history, or large volumes of analysis. Instead, there are a few simple numbers. Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track, they are willing to vote Democratic in the abstract, and the strength of Republican belief is at a low ebb. Iraq is the wrong track proof, wages are the "Democrats are better for your paycheck" item, and corruption and Social Security are the KITV.
The word the Democrats are looking for is "fix", they are going to "fix" Washington. It should say something that a stealth campaign around "Enough is Enough" has had more traction, and has more bumper stickers, than anything the party machine has come up with. It's time that the Democratic Party listen to the people, since demos does mean people - and start saying on television what many people are saying on their rear fender.
I don't know what you mean by:
The problem is not that they are not being Republican enough. The problem is their stupid policies don't work.
But I do agree with you on fixing Washington, and the reality that Democrats are better for your paycheck.
But, I think it's also important to point out that Republicans cannot be trusted on National Security. They are arsonists, starting fires so that they can campaign on pretending to put the fires out. That's not to say that there aren't problems in the world. It's certainly a wilderness of uncertainty. Waving your arms in the air and claiming that the sky is falling all the time isn't a solution to security.
Terrorism is about promoting fear. Terrorists want us to be afraid. Frankly speaking, the United States of America is a strong nation and we are not at any risk of being overwhelmed by islamofascism, unless we let it. We only let it, if we run screaming around afraid of it.
I've got a lot more faith in our country and our values, than the Republicans seem to have. So the Democrats need to get out there and start talking about that.
I don't mean whining about Bush. I mean talking about great this nation is, and how pathetic it is that the Republicans hate it so much that they want us to abandon our principles as articulated in the Constitution.
September 15, 2006 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this strategy basically misses the point. Obviously people are disappointed with the Republicans, and in any normal situation they would throw them out. But the Republicans have a simple tactic, that you cannot trust the Democrats, and your posts doesn't address this. Another problem is Democrats talk too much about Bush, and not enough about what they are going to do. So the situation is ripe for Republicans to paint Democrats as not standing for anything and not to be trusted.
So it is necessary and sufficient to neutralise these two points. The way to make the Democrats appear trustworthy is the same way political parties do this all over the world and how Clinton did it. You make a list of promises that allay these concerns, and you vow to honour them if elected. Then the Republicans can call you a liar or they have nothing left to say.
So to neutralise Rove's strategy on Iraq the Democrats should promise (on a Bible if need be) to not pull out too quickly from Iraq. The wording should be derived from the Republican talking points. Make a list of all the bad things Republicans say the Democrats might do, promise not to do them, and say that loudly over and over again to anyone that will listen. Promise not to raise taxes on anyone but the richest. Promise to get spending back to what it was before Bush, plus inflation. Promise to make Bin Laden the first priority. Promise to prosecute all corrupt politicians. Promise to not bring in gay marriage for the term of the Congress. Promise, promise, promise. Whenever Rove smears anyone, promise the next day in a press release not to do what Rove says the Dems will do.
It is not necessary to promise on everything, only to promise on things they are being smeared on. Promise not to cut and run, whatever that means. Then when the inevitable debacle and withdrawal happens don't call it cut and run. Better to win the election and be called a liar then to lose over something the Democrats wouldn't have done anyway, but that they wouldn't promise on.
September 15, 2006 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I don't know what you mean by: "The Democratic Party is still trying to figure out who its voters are, and flails about with slogans and props. "
Who is flailing about with slogans and props, Democrats? Are you suggesting the Republican Party isn't relying on slogans and props, or not as obviously as the dems? Or are you simply implying that Republicans flail less than Democrats in front of the media?
Democrats are saying that Iraq is idiocy, that wages are terrible, and that corrupt Republicans are responsible for both. But the Republican Noise Machine attempts to drown that out and distort their views.
I believe you have fell into the trap laid by the Republican Noise Machine by portraying the Democrtaic Party just the way they want you to, as indecisive and weak.
September 15, 2006 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think what he means by Republicans aren't being Republican enough, is the fact that these people in power now have turned their backs on bed-rock conservative principles. Two examples which quickly come to mind are out of control spending and nation building. The Democrats have actually started speaking for true conservatives now. The only people the current Republican power structure speaks for are neo-cons and religious extremist.
>>But, I think it's also important to point out that Republicans cannot be trusted on National Security.
I agree, but even more important is to constantly point out that the Democrats can be trusted.
September 15, 2006 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another point on taxes.
Every Democrat should be asking his or her opponent what is fair about taxing income from labor at a rate of 30 percent while taxing income from investments at only 15 percent? Why is it fair for laborers to be taxed at twice the rate of owners? That's what the Bush tax cuts mean.
It's good to now shift focus on our counter-attack to their strategy, and good to set some overall themes. But we also need to attack on all the details and not let any point slip by.
Keep in mind that the RNC is carefully catering its messages to individual voters using new technology to find what issue to go at them with. From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091302254_pf.html
Since we don't have this same technology, we need to blanket the field to some extent.
Mind you, we don't have to win the arguments on each point, all we really have to do is legitimize our position enough that voters consider it a reasonable one to take and therefore not something that will decide their vote.
Just asking questions without necessarily answering them or making an argument can often accomplish this.
For instance, on the NSA thing -- which some GOP are running ads on -- we should be quickly saying we agree with spying on terrorists, but why does the President need the authority to do it without ever informing any judge or Congressman or even keeping a record of what was done? Who has access to the capabilities and what systems exist to make sure that people who should't have access, don't? What assurances do we have that such abilities are not used to disrupt political opponents or gain financially through insider information other than the word of government officials?
The GOP will try to appeal to people's base emotions. We must engage their minds and questions are the best way to do that.
September 15, 2006 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of seeming pessimistic, I have a real concern about a political strategy that is focused too much on the next election. The cause for this concern may appear a little paranoid: I think we have already slipped into a 1-party political regimen where momentary gains in elections by a nominal opposition don't really affect the basis of political power, particularly regarding the major policy decisions on war and peace and economics. What the dominant party loses in one election cycle will be easily recovered in the following cycle.
Being a latin-american (american), this slip into 1-party rule is always a real concern: in the back of my mind I see the republican model as a kind of PRI-lite (PRI being the mexican political party dominant in one form or other since the 20s until very recently). PRI itself is a lighter version of other 1 party latin american regimes, these being actual dictatorships most of which appeared in the 60's such as ARENA in Brazil, or PRD in Panama.
Now I concede that I haven't completely worked out these political analogies (and analogies may be dangerous in politics/history as the recent Munich/appeaser flap illustrates), but I think besides winning elections we need an opposition party that will not shy away from providing a real and highly visible alternative to the status quo.
September 15, 2006 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes attack the republicans for not being "republican enough". The party of "fiscal responsibility" has run up the largest budget deficits and the greatest amount of pork barrel giveaways in the history of our republic. They have engaged in an interventionist war. They have curtailed our civil liberties (which will probably play well with the "Libertarian" wing of the GOP) and have abondoned the concept of "State's rights" (i.e. Schiavo). The dems are now the fiscally responsible party. During the Clinton years the federal budget was running a surpluss and the dems welfare reform was very successful. Hit 'em with that!!!
El Presidente and the junta has this country going in the wrong direction no matter if a person is looking at it from a liberal or conservative P.O.V. So why not point out to disaffected conservatives that their dream of a smaller government has been betrayed by big government neocons? Either they will stay home or in some cases vote for the democrat...being socially progressive and fiscally conservative is a winning philosophy for the dems.
September 15, 2006 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like the "secret plan to end Security Security" angle. It's effective, and its true.
Three other tried and true mid-term themes:
"It's time to send a message to Washington." This is a mid-term election. Many moderate Republicans and right-leaning independents, who regard their presidential vote as sacred, might still be inclined to protest vote the other way in 2006 to impart a shock to the system.
"One-party rule is dangerous". This also appeals to many independents, and since there is no Presidential race this year, the only way to break up the one-party lock is to vote in a Democratic Congress.
"Give us a chance." Republicans have been in charge for a while, and many voters have lots of doubts about Republican rule. These same voters may have doubts about Democrats too. Fair enough. Give us two years to show you what we can do. If you don't like the results you can go back to the Republicans in 2008. This message is not so good for Senate races, but effective for the House.
September 15, 2006 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Focus on energy policy to link corruption and Iraq. People know that we can never be secure as long as our economy depends on Middle East oil. Just make it about common sense, not some neo-Puritan leftist anti-consumption guilt trip.
September 15, 2006 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
In pushing back against the Republican smear campaign, remember KISS. I'll translate that as Keep It Short & Sweet.
Republicans use this all the time, sending simple messages like, BE AFRAID, DEMOCRATS ARE TRAITORS, DEMOCRATS ARE COWARDS, DEMOCRATS FLIP FLOP, etc. These are usually classic examples of projection, where the Republicans accuse the Democrats of grave Republican shortcomings.
Fight back by tarring almost all elected Republicans on Iraq. Say "IN IRAQ, GOP WANTS TO STAY AND PAY, IN BLOOD AND DOLLARS."
Motivate voters on Social Security by saying SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY: VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS. It sends the true message that Republicans want to kill Social Security, and Democrats want to save it.
Leverage off the GOP corruption by saying, "END GOP CORRUPTION: VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS." Most people are very aware of how corrupt the Republicans have been, both here and in Iraq. This directs them to what they can do with their "enough is enough" feelings.
Another, "SAVE AMERICAN WAGES, NOT BILLIONAIRES: VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS"
These are just off the cuff examples offered as starting points, but the short and sweet Democratic messages have to start getting out to American voters right now, especially since it looks like the Bush Fear campaign does not have as much traction as it used to.
September 15, 2006 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Social Security is a good issue and it's easily bumper stickered.
Recall that in the summer of '04 Kerry and Bush were neck-in-neck in the polls. Then Ridge as head of Homeland Security suddenly put the nation on Orange Alert. The lap-dog media obediently threw away their filters, which I don't think they ever use anyway, got out their megaphones blasting the "chilling" news coast to coast and mass terror prevailed over anything Kerry had said or would say. (Nevermind that the "new" information Ridge had was actually four years old.)
It worked in '04: It'll work in '06. If the Dems don't by now have a defense to counter this tried and true Republican tactic, they may have already lost the election.
September 15, 2006 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
When particularly pessimistic I'm tempted to think the liberal mind-set makes us unelectable.
Liberals believe in fixing things : government programs to remedy problems; elections are won by the best bumper sticker . Everyone knows what Republicans stand for : strong defense and moral values."Praise the lord and pass the ammunition" fits nicely on a bumper .
But when Rahm Emanuel is asked , again and again , "What do democrats stand for ? " he lists 12 programs. Again and again. You can't put twelve programs on a bumper.
Kerry was the same .
What gives me some optimism is remembering Clinton's "Save social security first". Fits on a bumper.
Maybe we don't need either better programs or tougher attack ads. Just Bill again. Or someone like him.
September 15, 2006 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq and falling wages. That's absolutely right. The most effective use of slogans using the Iraq War and our economy with falling wages is what is not said -- what is left to be said by the listener. It's been used successfully by Republicans and some have called it using code words.
Stirling is right. If "had enough" has traction then the follow up is the Iraq war and declining wages.
All you need to do is watch the clip of Bush handling David Gregory today at his press conference that was really another campaign speech. You can find it at MSNBC.com. That's a good example of boxing in your opponent. In this particular case Bush nailed his targets: McCain, Warner and Graham and landed one on Gregory while he was at it.
"The bottom line is that if there is not clarity in the law, the surveillance program will not go forward" says Bush (or to that effect). He's telling the Republicans and Colin Powell if you don't to it my way, I'll yank the program.
Bush must have said the same thing four times at least.
Problem is can the Democrats be as disciplined and stay on message?
September 15, 2006 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would suggest some organization -- perhaps Move On or the Labor Movement, needs to do some national anti-Bush ads on the theme, BUSH DOES NOT UNDERSTAND HIS JOB DESCRIPTION. HE IS CONFUSED.
If you go back to the Presidential Oath -- in the Constitution, you'll note it says, "PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC."
Look at the Matt Lauer interview this week, and many other sources, Bush claims his job is to protect "us" (and I would ask, much as he protected the NOLA folk at the time of Katrina???) He has faked a transition from his official responsibilities, protecting our 200 plus year old Constitution as it has been amended and interpreted -- with the super personal -- "I am protecting you" construction.
Next step in argument: The Presidential Oath also includes the clause "TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED." You do that, according to Bush Practice, by taking over the powers of Congress to write the laws, and over the Judicial Powers to interpret the laws. Examples, Signing Statements, fudging the environmental science by having the Council on Environmental Quality re-write the findings about Air Quality collected by EPA at Ground Zero, defunding mine safety regulatory services, not enforcing employer sanctions regarding employment of migrants without green cards, -- add other examples that will resonate with the electorate.
Finally -- Vote Democratic to build a Congress that will assert its proper powers of oversight.
I think this can be reduced to a one minute video that could be distributed nationally, and off of which individual Democratic candidates could develop themes appropriate to their state and district.
September 15, 2006 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Sterling. Social Security and "Had enough?" are the ticket. "Give us a chance"? You've got to be kidding!
Now is not the time for being reasonable and hoping to persuade the undecided. Anyone who hasn't yet made up their mind, never will.
The point is to get our voters to the polls.
And make sure the votes get counted this time.
September 15, 2006 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've said it before, but I'll repeat it: to get out Democrats, disaffected independents and the not-inconsiderable number of Republicans (or former Republicans) who are aghast at what has been happening, send the following message:
GEORGE W. BUSH WILL BE PRESIDENT UNTIL 2009
SOMEONE HAS TO KEEP AN EYE ON HIM
VOTE DEMOCRATIC
It's not eloquent, it doesn't prescribe an alternative to the philosophy of the Right (which we need), but it works for right now.
September 15, 2006 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
speaking of microtargeting, where are my google ads from the DNC?
I have had the humiliation of receiving solicitations from schools purporting to teach the secrets of comedic talent (ostensibly the alogoritm's judgement vis-a-vis the popular response to some bon mot I had the delusion was funny.) I know that google has a cookie file on me that knows me better than I know myself.
Maybe Sergey could, like, donate, some ad space?
September 15, 2006 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, then please direct me to the third party.
September 15, 2006 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrat running for the Senate in my state has no position on Iraq and her main campaign theme this week seems to be saving anyone making $335,999 a year from paying a single dime more in taxes. In other words, she's a Republican. Meanwhile, the Republican is running on saving my pension. He's lying, but he's no more incredible than his opponent.
September 15, 2006 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about:
Stop Living in Fear: Vote Democrat.
Satellite Sky Blog
Find the Truth. Do Justice.
September 15, 2006 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans advertise winning wars and lower taxes.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
September 15, 2006 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink