The NRSC’s Horrible, Horrible Video Game

The NRSC released Mission Majority this week, a simple online game with an 8-bit look that is just absolutely awful.

The game follows the adventures of an elephant named Giopi – like GOP, get it? – who is collecting keys and flipping switches to help the Republican party take back the Senate.  It’s obviously pure click bait, intended to draw in people and maybe squeeze out a donation.  It is kind of fun to play if you’re looking to waste some time at work.

The real problem is that the NRSC is not a video game company, so making a fun little time-waster isn’t enough. With 64 days to go until Election Day, everything released by a party committee has to have a message. Giopi’s mission is, as the game suggests, winning back the majority of the US Senate.  If you beat the game, you get a congratulatory note about how taking back the Senate will mean the end of the “red tape” and “regulations” holding America back.

“Red tape?” “Regulations?” Is that the compelling case the GOP is making to American voters this year?

People have lost their health coverage or been forced to pay more. Hourly workers are seeing their shifts cut short because the money isn’t there to pay them. Middle East terrorists are operating with no fear of retribution.

Maybe it’s just a game, but the NRSC’s tone deafnesses and inability to verbalize what they can offer the electorate in such an easy setting should be unsettling to anyone thinking about cracking their wallet open.


The “Against the Spread” Election

Princeton University’s Sam Wang thinks Democrats have a 65% chance of holding onto the Senate.  Republicans should be spreading that news far and wide.

Unfortunately for the GOP, most of the news media seems to take a Senate flip as fait accompli.  The concept of the “point spread” – a staple of fall once football season kicks off – applies to elections, too.  Expectations are the point spreads of politics.  For example: Conventional wisdom in January stated that Sens. Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu were toast.  But both are legacy politicians in states which favor such things, making the incompetence and indifference of their party’s nominal leader less relevant.  Fewer people than anticipated in Arkansas or Louisiana seem ready to link their November vote to the fact that the last year of the Obama Presidency has looked like a mix between a Jerry Lewis movie and that scene in Office Space where Peter stops pretending to care about his job.

Should Pryor and Landrieu pull off razor-thin victories, pundits will cluck that even in red states, Republicans were unable to win enough support to topple vulnerable incumbents.  On a national scale, if Republicans fail to win the Senate despite major media outlets anticipating a flip, there will be similar indictments of the GOP’s messages and strategies.

Now would be a good time to temper national expectations.  Party officials should talk about the lack of a national wave, while pointing out that frustration has been building for some time.  Political reporters should hear a steady drumbeat of phrases like:

  • “This isn’t 2010.”
  • “People are frustrated with all of Washington right now, we’ll see how individual races shake out.”
  • “A Senate flip would be pretty drastic based on the numbers of seats we’d have to pick up. We have some great candidates, but that might be a little bit of a stretch.”

A round of stories right around Labor Day throwing cold water on the national excitement wouldn’t be the worst thing (though it might have been better about a month ago). By framing a Senate switch as drastic, historic, and improbably, the GOP could have been in a position to claim an even greater popular mandate heading into 2015.

As it is now, a Republican majority is something the chattering class are expecting – which would frame even an appreciable gain of five Senate seats a crushing national loss.

Robin Williams’s death gets a White House statement. Where’s the one for Maj. Gen. Harold Greene?

Hours after the news of Robin Williams’s death broke, the White House issued a heartfelt and sincere statement.

Major General Harold Green was killed in action several days ago, in Afghanistan. The White House was slow to respond to the death of a high-ranking servicemember, and has not yet posted a statement on the White House website.  

Most people don’t know Gen. Greene’s name, while just about everyone knew Williams’s.  He was so adept at shifting among adult-themed comedy, serious acting, and family-oriented silliness that most people have a favorite Robin Williams movie or appearance.

The Facebook and Twitter tributes back that up: Williams’s death is a trending topic.  And the Obama White House has a keen sense of zeitgeist (one that makes their apparent, frequent tone deafness tough to understand).  The White House statement on Williams passing will make it into news feeds and be retweeted, so speaking out on his death – and doing so quickly – becomes a priority.  

Treating death this way is unfair – not only to Maj. Gen. Greene, but to Williams, who deserves to be more than social media fodder for a politician.

Obama blames GOP extremism for not appreciating how brilliant he is

Our American President mused in a New York Times interview that the series of speedbumps that have knocked him off course for the past five to six years has a lot to do with the extremists he faces in the other party: 

“Our politics are dysfunctional,” said the [P]resident… “Increasingly politicians are rewarded for taking the most extreme maximalist positions,” he said, “and sooner or later, that catches up with you.”

Extreme and divisive politics sure does catch up to you. For example, you reaching across the aisle when you finish a bitter election season and your best negotiating point with your opponents is, “I won.”  (This is especially true if it comes right after spending a year promising “a new kind of politics.”)  And once is bad enough, but then if you do it again, you’re really going to have problems. 

Hopefully the Obama Adminstration can overcome such a toxic political enviroment.

It’s not just isolationism

A new Politico poll shows an American public hesitant to jump into conflicts in Iraq and the Ukraine. The rise of non-interventionist Republicans over the past five years has echoed that shift in public opinion, but it has also shined the light on an argument among GOP thought leaders, usually positioned as interventionism vs. isolationism. (Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Rand Paul recently duked it out in this ring.)

That’s a false choice, based on what the Politico survey shows. Consider this interview:

Respondent Deborah Cantrell, a Georgia nurse who intends to vote for Democratic candidates this fall, said she supports pulling back from Iraq and Afghanistan and believes the situation in Ukraine is “very complicated.”

“I think any time ethnic nationalism goes on, it’s really bad,” said Cantrell, 58. “I hope we don’t get terribly involved right off the bat because I’m not sure we can do anything to make it better. I generally don’t think we can go in and have people behave properly just because we’re there.”

Cantrell’s assessment is more nuanced than a simple claim that, “It isn’t any of our business.” She’s concerned with ability; Intervention as a concept is almost a moot point because, in her view, wouldn’t solve the problem even if done successfully.

With recent conflicts shrouded in complex issues that stretch back decades if not centuries, Americans may feel U.S. involvement would be at best a superficial band-aid on a multi-generational flesh wound. Barring a direct attack on the United States, that will be the real hurdle for interventionists looking to win support in coming election cycles.

Brat vs. McDaniel

Tea Partiers should be watching Mississippi and Virginia very closely and watching the difference between two upstart candidates.

In Mississippi, conservative activists feel slighted by national Republican groups who supported Sen. Thad Cochran. Given the last-minute, over-the-top race baiting rhetoric that all but accused the Tea Party of resurrecting Jim Crow laws, you can see where McDaniel supporters are coming from. (Even if the NRSC or other Republicans didn’t green-light the strategy, the guilt-by-association isn’t a huge jump.)

And McDaniel walked right into it.

Even as an incumbent, Thad Cochran was not a great primary candidate.  A good opponent with a good campaign would have knocked him off without even needing a runoff. McDaniel could not jump over the low ankle hurdle of competence. How bad was he? He was a worse candidate than Cochran.

McDaniel’s sketchy connections with neo-Confederate groups were already in the public discourse. So when Cochran’s allies floated the idea of “expanding the electorate” to win the runoff, McDaniel’s response – deploying poll watchers to shoo away ineligibles – fed the narrative. Creating mental images of militant racist whites intimidating black voters was an easy bridge to cross in the minds of many voters.

The right response to Cochran saying he’s expanding the electorate should have been: “Bring it on, Broseph.” Well, maybe not the Broseph part, but you get the picture. He could have added: “I invite all Mississippians who are eligible to come to the polls. As we showed in the runoff, the more people who hear about our vision know that we stand for a brighter vision for all of Mississippi. I welcome the vote of anyone who agrees.” Or something like that.

That’s all he would have had to say. And yet, McDaniel kept talking about outsiders invading the primary- and he’s still talking, exploring ways to challenge the outcome. In defeat, McDaniel has talked more than the guy who pulled an actual upset, Dave Brat.

Brat has been pretty quiet since giving the political world a rare surprise by defeating Rep. Eric Cantor. Think about it: In a world of constant analysis and near-ubiquitous news coverage, no one saw Brat’s win coming. And he didn’t just squeak it out – he beat an incumbent in leadership by 10 points. (Disclosure: The firm I work for did work for Cantor’s campaign.) In the weeks since, outside of a statement criticizing the President’s immigration policies, Brat has been pretty tight-lipped in the national media.

Any so-called “Tea Party” candidate is going to wear a big old target on their back during this election cycle – just like they did in 2012. Democrats looking to cut their losses will surely look to take any candidate’s misstep and blow it up to build a national narrative. Brat hasn’t given them any ammunition; McDaniel practically loaded the guns for them. The candidate class of 2014 will need to speak carefully to avoid McDaniel’s fate.

Why Hillary Clinton Won’t Be President

Wow, Hillary Clinton really stepped in it with her comment about being “dead broke” after leaving the White House, didn’t she?

Factually, she’s probably right. Bill’s career was almost exclusively in public life — from his first term as Arkansas attorney general starting in 1977 to leaving the White House in January 2001, he spent 22 of 24 years holding a public office.  And it’s not like he was the scion of a political dynasty like the guy he replaced or the guy who replaced him. Factor in the legal fees from lawsuits that are the inevitable result of decades of chasing tail, and you can see that the Clintons wouldn’t have been flush with resources, even if the cattle futures market performed particularly well.  The questions came up because the Clinton’s hit the speaking circuit to help drum up the extra scratch – which has been incredibly lucrative in the post-White House years.

But what she said isn’t as important as how she said it:

“We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” Clinton told ABC News. “We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy.”

There are a couple of triggers in there that won’t resonate well with people who don’t pay much attention to politics (i.e. voters who have better things to do).

Obviously, the use of the plural “houses” and “mortgages” comes off wrong. You’ll remember that after Bill was laid off of his job, Hillary found work as a Senator, which required lots of travel. Having two houses makes sense and isn’t uncommon for Senators, but Senators are only 100 of the several millions of votes needed to become President. (And many of them are in non-target states, to boot.)

What wasn’t plural in her comments was the education expenses. Many parents with multiple kids struggle to figure out how to pay a double dose of inflated college expenses. Those same parents probably assume that the political connections of eight years in the White House probably help move money better than a FAFSA.

The new book and marathon interviews are clearly a way for Clinton to soften her image in advance of the coming deluge from the vast right wing conspiracy. The problem is the tin ear turned to how people currently view her. She has been in the public spotlight since 1992, which means a long and public track record on which voters have based mature opinions. There’s also a celebrity factor: the public assumes that famous people (whether actors, athletes, politicians) are out-of-touch.  If they go broke, the assumption is that they must have spent their money foolishly.

The question was about making millions in speaking fees. Instead of talking about the need for the speeches, Clinton would have been better off talking about the chance to connect with people. “Yes, we did a lot of speaking, all over the country,” she might have said. “Living in the White House, you don’t get to talk to many people outside of government. After years of partisan bickering, that gave us a chance to get back out and see what people were thinking, what mattered to people.”  And then, if she really wanted to pour it on: “That was a really important time for us. If really refreshed our desire to keep fighting for the things we believe in.”

Schmaltzy? Maybe a little, but it stops the conversation about speaking fees. Clinton’s out-of-touch answer keeps the issue going. If she misfires this way repeatedly, she’ll cement the public view of a career politician who believes it’s her turn to be President.

As Mitt Romney can attest, when voters feel like they can’t identify with you, they won’t vote for you.