Author: Jim Eltringham

Political consultant specializing in grassroots mobilization, online media, and public relations.

Christie vs. Giuliani

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Gov. Chris Christie fired what sounded like a shot against the early front runner for the 2016 Republican nomination last week:

“As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said.

There’s some value in Christie’s points, but they get lost in incendiary rhetoric.  Invoking September 11, 2001 and calling those with reservations about government overreach “dangerous” is similar to calling the Obama Administration “socialist” – the words are so far over the top that they no longer register with the average voter.

Those concerned with domestic spying and data mining programs rail against politicians who frame a choice between security and privacy.  Christie would have been smarter to echo such”false choice” rhetoric.  “There needn’t be a false choice between security and privacy – we can and must have aggressive, effective programs that smoke out terrorists that don’t violate our rights,” he might have said.  (Though, come to think of it, he probably shouldn’t use the word “needn’t.”  He’s got speechwriters for that, though.)

This type of language is much more inclusive, and that’s what Christie will need to get his 2016 efforts on track.  Sen. Rand Paul is ahead in the polls because people support his positions; a candidate who calls those positions “dangerous” will find it hard to win their support – even if he wins the nomination.

Christie has a good example just to his north, in the city for which his state is an oversize suburb.  Rudy Giuliani’s speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention argued for many specific policies that Paul would probably not agree with.  Yet the arguments were framed by a theme captured in one stand-out phrase: “Our party’s great contribution is to expand freedom.”  Giuliani was never a conservative darling, but with this line he at least let on that he understood where conservatives were coming from.

Giuliani did not simply argue that he was right while the other side was wrong; he argued that the other side should agree with him because his solutions offered the best chance to advance their goals.  It’s similar to the way Paul Ryan tried to frame entitlement reform as a way to preserve the safety net.

And it’s the way a candidate like Christie – who will , realistically, have difficulty proving conservative bona fides to many primary voters – will have to start talking if he wants to win the party’s nomination and the White House.

Why Bankrupting America’s New Web Series Actually Works

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

This week, Bankrupting America launched “The Government,” a new web series this week parodying both government spending and The Office.  Unlike many attempts at politically themed humor, it actually works.

There are some over-the-top spots – the introduction of the (probably?) fictional Department of Every Bureaucratic Transaction comes to mind – but nothing that detracts from the main joke.  What makes the video click is its natural dialogue, solid acting, identifiable characters, and subtle jokes (such as the employees walking around in the background holding golden coffee mugs with oven mitts).

In other words, structurally, it entertains for the same reasons The Office did, which means it’s a great approach to this type of communication.  If future episodes hit these same beats (and patch up some of the rough spots), Bankrupting America will have a pretty powerful messaging device on its hands.

Let’s Make a Deal: MLB Edition

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

If Ryan Braun dominated the sports headlines on Tuesday morning, Alex Rodriguez dominated the sub-headlines.  News of Braun’s plea bargained 65-game suspension for using performance enhancing drugs was followed near-universally with the question, “Now, what about ARod?”

It’s a relevant question: Not only is Rodriguez one of the most famous and hated players in any sport, but like Braun he’s a repeat visitor to the PED circus.  But just because it’s a relevant question doesn’t mean it’s the best one.

Soon after Braun’s suspension news broke, Buster Olney was on the phone with the broadcast team calling Monday night’s ESPN telecast of the Yankees and Rangers.  Olney offered this insight: while Rodriguez is the biggest name on the docket, the player most likely to pursue a deal with MLB is Texas’s Nelson Cruz.  As a free agent after this year, Cruz is best served serving his suspension now and entering the open market as an available yet questionable talent.  If he waits, and the suspension gets handed down over the winter or next spring, Cruz might find it hard to sign if teams are unsure of his availability.

The astute Olney cut through the flash and the clutter to identify the real story – and good for him.  Now, back to the coverage of the royal baby.

 

 

Unions Clamor For Smaller Government

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

This ad opposing Common Core standards popped up on a few right-leaning blogs this week, advertising the website StopGovernmentOverreach.org:

340019545807829482

Clicking through led to this landing page:

landingpage

Who’s behind these right-wing clarion calls to limit expansive government?  The AFL-CIO, of course.  They don’t particularly hide their involvement, but they don’t bang the drum to call attention to their funding either.

It’s actually a smart and mature move.  Opposition to Common Core education isn’t the sole dominion of people who would rather not see teachers held accountable; there are also people who hold principled stances against national standards superseding local control of education.

What would be interesting to know is how the AFL-CIO uses this data.  For an advocacy group, a list of people on the other side who agree with you on certain issues is an underrated asset.  If they can turn other policy positions into small-government arguments, they can go back to that list for future action.

A Rolling Stone Gathers an Awful Lot of Outrage

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Boston is aghast (as are other cities) at the now-famous Rolling Stone cover depicting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.  The picture is too kind, too glamorous, and too normal, say critics.  The story is online as of yesterday, but the outrage did not wait.

It’s surprising that the outrage has an anti-terrorism bent but that pro-Islamic groups aren’t railing at the implications.  Check out the sub-title of the cover:

How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed by His Family, Fell into Radical Islam and Became a Monster

That’s a pretty loaded statement.  The implication is that radical Islam turned an otherwise normal boy into the type who would bring devastation upon the Boston Marathon.

This headline suggests that Tsarnaev did not have evil sewn into his soul;  rather, the corrupting influence of the radical Islamic community exploited his loneliness and confusion to brainwash him.  Of course the image is wholesome-looking – the thrust of this line of thinking is that this could happen to anyone.

One would think a group like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (which has apparently been silent on the issue) would have as many or  more problems with that cover than, say, Hot Air.

Is the Pope Absolving Sin Via Twitter?

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Nope.  But that’s the quick and dirty understanding of today’s announcement that Pope Francis will grant the same plenary indulgences to those who follow his appearances on Twitter as he does to those who show up in person.  Mashable had to correct an earlier post that made the mistake, and other outlets have had a similarly difficult time understanding what’s going on.

Credit the Church with gamely trying to explain the tactic:

But a senior Vatican official warned web-surfing Catholics that indulgences still required a dose of old-fashioned faith, and that paradise was not just a few mouse clicks away.

“You can’t obtain indulgences like getting a coffee from a vending machine,” Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, head of the pontifical council for social communication, told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera.

Unfortunately, even the framing of this quote reflects that the Church’s announcement wasn’t completely understood with the explanation.  (Sidebar: The phrase “old-fashioned faith” is a literary crutch.  Faith is not old-fashioned, as any modern religion can tell you.)  The entire story reads like the news that Newt Gingrich was paying for Twitter followers, with the expectation that a modern-day Martin Luther will nail 95 theses (each one 140 characters or less) to the Vatican door about why pardoning sin for a Twitter follow is wrong.

A better description is that those in attendance via social media will be treated like those in attendance in person.  The Church might have added that, much like angels and prayer, that which is unseen is often more powerful as that which is seen.  (Or, that which is invisible is often more powerful than the visible, if you prefer the new translation.)  In the parlance of our times, it’s the religious equivalent of working from home but not having to take a sick day.

Credit the Pope for opening up avenues for online communication, and making his appearances that much more accessible.  With that, though, comes the need to explain the faith to those who don’t understand it.  It’s not evangelism, it’s public relations.

Data on Donuts to Make You Go Nuts

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Dunkin’ Donuts will roll out a loyalty program later this year.  (Shockingly, this will not be automatically included with residency in Massachusetts or Rhode Island.)

Anyone who has spent time in New England (or the Northeast in general) understands that this is an idea whose time is overdue.  Dunkin’ Brands’ Vice President of Global Consumer Engagement didn’t give away too much when chatting about the new program with Ad Exchanger, but this part was pretty interesting:

We look at the consumer base and there are a number of options for them to consider when making the decision on where to get their coffee, whether that’s in the morning or the afternoon. We wanted to not only reward them, but provide incentives, and ways to drive frequency and customer retention… [T]hat’s where every marketer wants to be — where they know exactly who is buying, when they are buying, what they are buying and what triggers they need to make them potentially buy more. We see it the evolution of driving a more comprehensive CRM opportunity with Dunkin’.

They may not know it, but it’s a direct copy from the 2012 Obama campaign: tap into an audience’s excitement, then gather as much data about what causes that excitement to translate into action.  Every cause has its champions, so ever would-be mob leader needs to think this way.

At least in theory, Dunkin’ Donuts will run a loyalty program that looks like a Presidential campaign.

Rand Stands His Ground

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

This week, Texas’s baby debate, the Zimmerman trial winding down, and Obamacare topped the news.  So you could forgive Sen. Rand Paul if he ignored the news that broke about one of his advisors was a southern sympathizer.

Instead, Paul replied – and did so defiantly:

Paul (R-Ky.) stressed that he opposed such views, many of which have been recanted by the Senate aide, Jack Hunter, who co-wrote Paul’s first book in 2010 and who is now his social media adviser in Washington.

“I’m not a fan of secession,” Paul said. “I think the things he said about John Wilkes Booth are absolutely stupid. I think Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents. Do I think Lincoln was wrong is taking away the freedom of the press and the right of habeas corpus? Yeah.

…“Are we at a point where nobody can have had a youth or said anything untoward?” the senator asked rhetorically.

Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer are both running for office with scandals much closer in the rear view mirror, so it’s an apt question.  But more than that, it’s a departure from the usual playbook on politicians handling negative information.  Usually, Republicans will apologize, fire the offending staffer, and then pose for awkward pictures with black people.

Paul seems to understand that plan sends the public bullcrap meter off the charts.  He answered honestly, instead.

And maybe it’s time for politicians to start doing things like that.  Politically inconvenient sincerity builds good will (or what passes for good will when dealing with a politician).  After all, if we was going to lie about something, surely he’d lie about this, right?  It also demonstrates a healthy respect for the electorate’s intelligence.

Will it help him stand out during the GOP kumite in Spring 2016?  Maybe not, since another likely candidate will have the same type of tough-talking honesty as his signature, too.  At least it will set a good example.

Obama’s data may scale – but will his support?

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Democrats are clicking their heels at the prospect of using the Obama 2012 list for the 2014 campaigns.  Fresh off a special election win in Massachusetts, the main concern seems to be how to scale the data from a national campaign down to a Congressional-level race:

That’s not to say, Democrats caution, that there’s nothing lost in the scaling process. Hiring a talented analyst doesn’t mean a campaign will be able to collect the immense trove of data — and update it over and over — the way the Obama campaign did. Not every Senate and congressional candidate will have the wherewithal, or the inclination, to test the effect of slightly varying messages on an experimental slice of the electorate.

But down-ballot campaigns also don’t need that level of data awareness in order to improve their performance in some material way. And if the Massachusetts special election was one case study in transferring data and analytics tools to a nonpresidential level, Democratic operatives say there’s plenty more where that came from.

There’s a big problem, though: there isn’t plenty more where that came from.  Barack Obama is no longer running.

Sure, he’ll “sign” emails – and despite tumbling approval ratings, that will mean a lot to a certain subset of voters.  Even so, starting in 2014, Democrats have to deal with a problem Republicans have  suffered since 1988: the specter of a popular and philosophically grounded President may hang over the election, but the candidates who fill his spot on the ballot won’t match his charisma.  Voters vote for candidates more than they vote for ideas.

And Barack Obama ain’t walkin’ through that door.

 

 

Funny First

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

David Letterman’s ratings are falling like the stuff he used to toss off of buildings back in the day.  Big Hollywood’s Christian Toto speculates that it might be because the normally warm and cuddly Dave is letting politics stifle his comedy:

Leno continues to pound the president as the daily headlines demand. He does so without venom–he’s merely mocking the powerful as he’s been doing ever since taking over for Johnny Carson in 1992.

Letterman, by contrast, avoids Obama jokes in his monologues. When he does serve one up, he looks as if he’d rather be anywhere else but on the Late Show set.

Toto has a point.  In May, Letterman started trying to shame Senators who opposed gun control with a “Stooge of the Night” segment.  Here’s one for Ted Cruz:

Setting aside the amateur-hour graphics that look like a middle schooler found an outdated version of Windows Moviemaker, it’s just not funny – and it gets less funny as the tortured segment drags out.  When Letterman made fun of George W. Bush for sounding like a dunce, it didn’t always sound like Dave had an ax to grind.  There was a setup and a punchline.  There’s a difference between being sarcastic (or even caustic) and ranting about an issue because you have a TV show and you can.

“Conservative entertainment” gets deserved criticism for ignoring quality in pursuit of a made point.  Now, the once-hilarious Letterman is writing a textbook on it from the other side.

You know, this kind of crap didn’t happen on Hal Gurnee’s watch.