Category: Politics and Grassroots

Project Ivy and digital coat tails

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Over at Communities Digital News, I have a new piece up about Project Ivy – the Democrats’ plan to deploy the digital tools that helped President Obama in 2012 and Terry McAuliffe in 2013 into down ballot races in 2014:

The data tools used this year may not help Democrats keep their hold on the Senate, or win more Governorships, or even gain ground in state legislative chambers. But all the data collected with those tools in 2014 will be mighty useful when a few hundred votes in Cuyahoga County could decide the White House in two short years.

Republicans may not need to match Democrats data point for data point to have a pretty good election cycle in 2014. But deploying their own tools with the future in mind will help build their abilities for coming cycles. 

You want more?  Here it is.

Democrats know they are facing an against-the-spread election this November. They’ll lose seats, but the question is how many. Dropping as many as five Senate seats to the GOP will look like a win if they maintain a voting majority for the next term.  And like a baseball team playing out the string with a 40-man roster in September, minor league talent in down-ballot races can help set the table for future victories.  Project Ivy isn’t really for 2014, it’s for 2016.

But if I bled Democrat blue there would be one major factor that rubs me the wrong way about Project Ivy: the name.

First off, ivy grows up, while the project takes high-level tactics and tries to push them down.  Maybe that strategy makes sense for Democrats, who put so much faith in federal government programs to cure the ills of small communities, but the metaphor is a bit off.

Second, remember Project ORCA? It was the widely panned GOTV app that Team Romney deployed in 2012, and was so named because the Obama team’s data processing system was nicknamed “Narwhal,” and orcas kill narwhals.  As it turned out, the narwhal was an octopus with tentacles everywhere, and orcas don’t do crap against octopi.  This metaphor is getting even more tortured, so let’s move to the point: A clever name often foreshadows failure.  The only political tactical operations with cool names that work are the ones you hear about after the election.

The best news for the GOP about Project Ivy might be the fact that the first news stories about it are in March 2014, and not the week after Election Day.

The right to discriminate

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Kansas says that if you own a restaurant, your property is your property, even if you refuse to serve gay and lesbian couples.  Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern feels that’s an “abomination,” and Salon’s Matt Breunig calls out conservatives and libertarians who believe that discrimination carries its own consequences.

Breunig specifically calls out one of the most consistently pro-liberty voices on the right, Tim Carney:

This fact is important to remember as the state of Kansas considers enshrining into its law the right of public accommodations like hotels, movie theaters and restaurants to discriminate against couples in same-sex marriages. Under this law, a manager who spotted a same-sex marriage party dining at his restaurant is empowered to refuse them service and demand that they leave.

In his never-ending quest to be on the wrong side of history on all things LGBT civil rights, Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner took to Twitter to defend this legislation, perhaps hoping that he will get a mention in future documentaries about the bigotry of this period.

…

Suppose a gay wedding party goes into a restaurant, sits down, and prepares to order. The restaurant manager comes over and tells them that they must leave because they are gay. Angered by this bigotry, the patrons refuse to leave. Now ask yourself: What happens next?

Here’s what happens: The police are called, and the trespassers are removed from the premises.  Then, the incident gets a write-up in the local paper, and people stop eating at that restaurant because they would call the police to kick out a gay wedding party that was otherwise well-behaved.  The restaurant closes down, and the restaurant owner who called the cops either changes his mind or he goes broke and starves to death.

The idea that anti-discriminatory values have to be enforced is absurd.  If you’re a store owner that doesn’t like black people, go ahead and ban them from your store and see how that works out for you.  Don’t want Hispanic shoppers?  Hang a sign out front that says “No vendemos a clientes Latinos.”  Go for it.  I dare you.

No business owner in their right mind would do that.  And if they did, the people who shopped there would get funny looks wherever else they went.  Laws that tell us how we should live can mask social problems, but letting people figure it out for themselves non-violently tends to actually solve them.

 

 

 

 

Mitt, we hardly knew ye

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Mitt Romney is letting his perfect hair down to promote the Netflix documentary chronicling his White House run.  Predictably, without the pressures and influence of a campaign, people are a bit more receptive to him.

(Bob Dole had a similar tour after losing in 1996, trading jokes with David Letterman and quipping that he didn’t “have anything else to do” but write jokes.)

More than one Republican has bemoaned the fact that, had voters seen such a touching look at the Romney family, the 2012 election may have ended differently.  “If only voters had seen THIS Mitt Romney, Obama would have lost!” they tend to exclaim.  Not always in exactly those words, but you get the picture.

And come to think of it, it’s a good point.  One wonders why the documentary had to come out over a year after all the votes were counted.  If the image of Romney presented in the documentary would have swayed the election, Team Romney have only themselves to blame.

A 2016 Presidential candidate could grant access to a friendly but independent documentary filmmaker and create a Netflix or YouTube miniseries.  The film would not be subject to any campaign approval, which would make the vetting process important.  But it would soften the candidate’s image, and possibly help voters relate to the candidate.  It would humanize a talking head voters see on TV.

Gov. Chris Christie could use such a medium to rebound from scandal.  Sen. Rand Paul could use it to articulate how his small-government ideas will help most Americans.  Sen. Ted Cruz could show that he isn’t as much of an ideologue as the media and Democrats suggest.  The one who needs it the most is Hillary Clinton, who is more a creature of Washington, D.C. than any other prospective candidate in the field.

There is a caveat: this strategy only works if the candidate is genuine.  If the public persona doesn’t match private conversations, then it’s a disaster waiting to happen.

For Romney, a running documentary series could have answered the image of the ruthless CEO with one of the consummate family man.  Even though it probably wouldn’t have pushed him over the hump, those who will chase the White House in 2016 should pay attention.

Winning On Obamacare

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

From the latest “By the Numbers” column on the Washington Times Communities:

The Obama Administration’s rocky implementation of the Affordable Care Act has made the Republican Party increasingly optimistic in the early days of 2014. Each piece of bad Obamacare news has helped cement “Winning the Senate” as the top item on the GOP New Year’s resolution list.

And why not? With every failure, the fissures in President Barack Obama’s electoral coalition widen a bit more. Those cracks were on display in December polls. Millenials don’t like the law – 56% disapprove, according to one survey from the Harvard Institute of Politics. Approval ratings for the President are falling among Latino and Hispanic voters, says a Gallup poll; Obama’s 52% mark reflects a 23% drop in the past year.

This news paints a rosy picture for Republican election prospects. It also comes with an important to-do list. Just because people are frustrated with Democrats doesn’t mean they will run into the Republicans’ open arms.

Read more here.

Great meal. Let’s talk about Obamacare.

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The Organizing for America/Obama Campaign folks took some ribbing in the past week for their campaign to get people talking about Obamacare around the Thanksgiving table.  OFA provides you talking points on your way home, and you are supposed to convince your Drunk Uncle that Health Insurance is a good thing.

As silly as the campaign is, here’s the really ridiculous part: There’s no engagement of the actual issues people are talking about.  People are seeing their premiums go up, or losing their plans.  The website is broken, and the government knew it was broken.  There is precious little credibility in even the rosiest talking points OFA offers, and there’s no real guide to handling pushback.

OFA’s effort – in as much as it really is an effort and not just an excuse for periodic communication to keep the email list fresh – will fail because they have no idea how to talk to people who disagree with the concept of Obamacare.  And that population seems to get bigger everyday – without a website full of discussion guides.

Three out of four ain’t bad…

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Turnout operations are critical in tight campaigns – and especially so in mid-term elections, campaigns can’t rely on national awareness to gin up attention to Election Day.  As I noted in my most recent Washington Times Communities post, mid-term turnout modeling means than Republicans can win big with just 75% of their 2012 voters coming back.

Obviously, to create that much excitement, Republican candidates are going to have to have good messages and be disciplined about sticking to them.  But with continued problems with Obamacare, the messaging environment will likely be in the GOP’s favor.  And people who voted Republican in 2012 – which was an off-year – are probably much happier with their vote than their Democrat friends and neighbors.

 

Wrapping up Cuccinelli’s loss

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Last week I started a column at the Washington Times Communities page called “By the Numbers” and started with a look at Ken Cuccinelli’s Virginia loss.  

With just 3.1%more of Mitt Romney’s 2012 voters, Cuccinelli could have celebrated a Dewey-defeats-Truman moment.  Instead, 780,000 Virginians who supported Romney’s losing effort stayed home, and Terry McAuliffe sneaked past by around 55,000 votes.  POLITICO profiled McAuliffe’s advanced data-driven operation, which read like the post-game analysis of Barack Obama’s win last year.  Meanwhile, Stu Rothenberg underscored Cuccinelli’s failure to bring back Romeny voters.

There were plenty of challenges thrown at Cuccinelli: a spending gap, infighting, an erroneously modeled Washington Post poll that depressed GOP turnout, and center-right outside groups staying on the sideline.  Blaming these things for the loss is like a football team blaming a one-point defeat on a bad call in the first quarter rather than a botched field goal on the last play of the game.  Those factors put Cuccinelli in a bad position, but he was still in a position to win.

Campaign plans are being hatched for 2014 right now, and would-be victors should look at Cuccinelli’s loss careful.  Luck – good or bad – is the residue of design.

 

GOP 2014: Conservative Candidates, Moderate Tone

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Today’s New York Times piece on Republican primary battles leads with Art Halvorson, the father of a former colleague who is running for Congress in Pennsylvania’s heavily Republican 9th District.  His opponent is incumbent Rep. Bill Shuster, who holds the seat his father held before him.  While much of the article falls into the oversimplified “Tea-Party-Versus-Establishment” narrative, Halvorson rejects the opportunity to bang the drum on more red meat issues, favoring a more populist tone:

“People don’t remember a time before the Shusters,” Mr. Halvorson said. “They created an aristocracy, and people are so accustomed to that’s the way politics is done around here, they don’t see how he can be toppled. I’ve got to show leadership’s what’s important, not seniority, and longevity is not leadership.” … “That’s the narrative everybody wants to know: What’s the Republican Party going to look like after Ted Cruz Tea Party people get done with it?” Mr. Halvorson asked, eschewing the Tea Party label even as he adopts many of its campaign tropes. 

Tea Party themes – less government, more freedom, less concentration of power – are more popular than the Tea Party label.  Candidates like Halvorson are wise to make their campaigns about ideas, rather than shorthand.

“Yes, but I have FRIENDS who are Libertarian!”

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Predictably, some of the grumbling from the aftermath of the Virginia governor’s race this week blamed those who voted for libertarian Robert Sarvis.  Leading up to the election, there was a clear advertising strategy telling certain voters that supporting Sarvis was tacit support for Terry McAuliffe.

Sarvis probably did not cost Cuccinelli the governor’s mansion.  This tweet from Townhall’s Kevin Glass quoted an important lesson about Republican and conservative candidates who want to reach out to libertarians:

BYkVlrzCEAIrkcW

When reaching out to any segment of the population, a campaign has to forge a real connection.  Demanding libertarian support with buzzwords or a rudimentary understanding of their values works only slightly better than a Latino outreach strategy based on a plateful of Taco Bell gorditas.  (That sounds like something Mitt Romney would have come up with, doesn’t it?)

One could make a libertarian case for Ken Cuccinelli, but not by asking someone to support the lesser of two evils.  There are libertarians who believe in putting principles aside occasionally to support an imperfect candidate with the best chance of winning; those people are known more colloquially as Republicans.  If libertarians are driven by principal, then they must be persuaded based on principle, not policy.

It’s a subtle shift.  In the example Glass tweet’s out above, he mentions taxes, which is a good example.  Most Republicans will bang the drum for lower taxes, but they aren’t always sure why.  The reality is that lower taxes leave money in the economy, which allows for efficient allocation of society’s resources.  Lower taxes mean more free markets, and we have seen for hundreds of years that when left to their own devices through free markets, people tend to make correct choices.

Maybe that’s not to convince all libertarians to support a candidate who also believes in mandatory prison terms for first time smokers, jokers, and midnight tokers.  But without a nuanced message like that, messaging to libertarians would be a wasted effort.

Being able to articulate the “why” – the principle behind the policy – makes a difference.

 

Who wins if Cuccinelli loses?

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 2 Comments

Ken Cuccinelli is on the ropes in the Virginia Governor’s race – which is one reason George Will raised some eyebrows last week with his glowing treatment of Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian candidate.  Why would a national, established Republican commentator like Will take what looks like an obvious swipe at a major party candidate in one of the two major races going on in 2013?

If trends continue and Cuccinelli loses, there will be another obvious dent in the narrative that the GOP brand is on the rebound  and well-positioned for victory in 2014.  Combined with the fallout from the government shutdown, it will be the second setback of the fall for Republicans, (overshadowing, to some degree, the failed rollout of Obamacare).

As the polls look now, it’s pretty likely to shake out that way.  But not all losses are created equal.  A less-than-50% win for Terry McAuliffe combined with a strong showing from the Sarvis, actually benefits some entities:

1.  Bill Bolling.  Remember Fredo Corleone’s reaction when he got passed over for his kid brother?  Supporters of party conventions over primaries like to say that the non-public, keep-it-in-the-family method of choosing a nominee is less hurtful, but that theory flew out the window in this case.  Rather than playing the good soldier and supporting his nominee, Bolling has waged an un-campaign by creating his own policy organization.  And the word on the street is that he has done some behind-the-scenes work for McAuliffe.  A race where Cuccinelli loses – but center-right candidates, combined, draw a majority – gives further credibility to Bolling in 2017 if he opts to run for Governor calling for a more moderate direction for the state party.

2.  Chris Christie.  Back in the day, the odd, off-off-year elections in Virginia and New Jersey meant split victories: Republicans would take the Old Dominion, Democrats would notch the Garden State.  This year, Christie’s runaway reelection victory will buck the trend.  As the most recent Republican winner, it will position him well with top donors and consultants as he prepares for his Presidential run in 2016.  There may also be some who look at a split-vote loss in Virginia as a sign that the GOP needs to moderate nationally.  While it would be a mistake for Christie or his team to make that case publicly, behind closed doors they can make that case to party leaders deciding where they ought to contribute their endorsements and dollars.

3.  Rand Paul.  Very quietly, Rand Paul has been having a great couple of months.  Once considered the most outspoken and conservative among the serious potential Republican field for 2016, Ted Cruz’s filibuster has allowed Paul to present himself as more publicly reserved than the Texas Senator.   While moderates would point to a Cuccinelli loss as a need for a philosophical shift toward the center, Paul could make the case that the split vote means the party has not done enough to make the case to voters equating smaller government with better government.  Since this argument does not involve telling conservative voters they are philosophically wrong, Paul could have the most to gain from a tight loss in Virginia.  (That Paul actually campaigned for Cuccinelli puts him in a better position, as well.)

4.  Conservative/Republican Commentators.  That’s not to say that any of the above folks, or their supporters, goaded Will into his story, of course.  Nationally, if Cuccinelli loses in part because of Sarvis, GOP talking heads can write off the loss as the product of vote-splitting and focus on what looks like an easy victory in New Jersey.  The tough loss might hurt the Commonwealth, but for the people who scream at cameras for a living, it provides an easy pivot point for cable news debates.