Category: Politics and Grassroots

CPAC 2015: George Washington ate here

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Much of the attention CPAC earned came from the annual straw poll results or sound bites from the candidate speeches. I’ll remember none of that.

I made it to CPAC for exactly one day this year, which was luckily all I needed to meet with my “CPAC friends” – fellow consultants, bloggers, or activists who I tend to bump into once a year, only at CPAC. That day was Friday. Late in the afternoon, I realized I 1) hadn’t eaten a full meal yet and 2) needed to go someplace quiet to get some work done. Off to the National Harbor McDonald’s I went, for a Friday Filet-o-Fish and some time away from CPAC, I thought.

I was only partly right: Soon after sitting down in a booth in the nearly deserted McDonald’s, I spied George Washington walk in. As regular CPAC goers can attest, there’s always a guy there dressed like Washington, so there was no mystery about where he came from.

Some of the other conference goers came in after him and struck up a conversation as they all waited for their respective orders. (I eavesdropped, of course. How often do you get to listen in on a conversation with George Washington? It wasn’t rude, it was history, so back off.)

They had apparently seen him join a group of people who walked out during Jeb Bush’s speech earlier that day. Yes, the Washington impersonator replied, he had participated but hadn’t organized it. Curious, the other attendees asked who he would vote for among the Republican contenders.

“Well,” he replied thoughtfully, “Scott Walker is probably the one I identify with the most. I didn’t finish college, either, you know – though I did receive a certificate as a surveyor from William and Mary.”

Surveyor? Suddenly, I realized: He’s interacting with everyone as if he actually is George Washington. Either this dude is committed to staying in character, or everyone in the McDonald’s is going to end up with the title, “Victim of a Bizarre Murder Spree.”  I’m not sitting in a spot where I could dodge musket fire at that point so I listen up and hope for the best.

President Washington introduces himself to a family sitting two booths over. The daughter, Alexandria (“How lovely,” Washington exclaimed at hearing her name. “They named a city after you, you know!”) had encouraged him to join her, her father, and her siblings. During their conversation the Father of Our Country mentioned that he does do school visits. It’s a bit tough to get him though. He explains: “My website is down but it will be up soon. In the meantime, Dr. Franklin gave me this wind whispering device – you speak into it and it carries your voice into the wind.” President Washington hold up his “wind whispering device,” which is a mobile phone. Ben Franklin understood cell phones but apparently couldn’t figure out GoDaddy.

Washington gets up to leave and runs into some more kids, siblings from another family that happened into this now-historic McDonald’s. Seeing their red hair, he pointed out that both he and his pal Thomas Jefferson had red hair in their younger years. “That means you have revolutionary hair!” he told them.

And just like that, he donned his tri-corner hat and off he went; the great George Washington was spirited away by either the mists of the late afternoon Potomac or a Honda Accord – I didn’t get a great look into the parking lot.

You know what the best part about it was? The kids ate it up! Those red-haired kids bragged to their Dad about having revolutionary hair for the rest of the time they were there, just like Alexandria seemed genuinely excited about interacting with a Founding Father. Even while was chowing down french fries or talking with college-aged CPACers who are obviously messing with him, he refused to admit that he wasn’t George Washington or act like anything was amiss.

In the context of CPAC, the guy walking around like George Washington can be a bit of an embarrassment to the younger, comparatively hipper attendees. This year, I was happy he came – even if it was just for a side trip to McDonald’s.

(Since I know you’re wondering: Yes, some of these interactions were with black people; No, the issue of slavery did not come up.)

It’s not just winning, but HOW you win

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Some would tell you that the larger, more diverse electorate that shows up in a Presidential year means Republicans are marching toward disappointment in 2016. Not so. In my new piece at Communities Digital News, I discuss how data-driven campaigning delivered most of the really close races of 2014 to the GOP – and how that sets them up for future success.

Sure, 2014 was a wave election – but that shouldn’t detract from smart Republican campaigns that put themselves in position to take advantage. There’s a difference between riding a wave and surfing.

ARod checks a box

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Michael Kay had a smart reaction to the hand-written apology Alex Rodriguez dropped today.

It was a little silly that ARod scrawled the mea culpa across a couple sheets of paper pilfered from an office printer. But in releasing a written statement, Kay points out that Rodriguez will not face a firing squad of New York writers and radio commentators looking to tear him down. It won’t win him any fans, but at this point what would? Rodriguez’s reputation and credibility are shot, and the only chance to get back in the good graces of fans and Yankees ownership is to shut up and play well.

The letter itself says all the right things – or at least, all the things he has to say. Yes, he’s sorry. No, he doesn’t expect you to believe him. More important, its release allows ARod the luxury of responding to any further questions about coming back from suspension with a succinct, “I already talked about that.” Even if no one else wants to move past his PED use and suspension, Rodriguez can credibly say he has.

Each year, it seems like Rodriguez offers a new lesson in crisis communications – and usually provides a comprehensive seminar of what not to do. Maybe he got this one right.

We don’t teach kids about financial democracy

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

An article in the Economist says that activist investors are good for a public company. In making the case, it frames publicly traded companies as organs of democracy:

AS INVENTIONS go, the public company is one of capitalism’s greatest. Initial public offerings promote innovation, by providing an exit route for entrepreneurs; being listed makes a firm open to scrutiny; and ordinary people have a chance to invest in capitalism’s wealth-creating machines.  …Activist hedge funds take small stakes in firms and act like political campaigners, trying to win other shareholders’ support for their demands: representation on companies’ boards, cost-cutting, spin-offs and returning cash to shareholders.

These are good points, specifically the idea that average people have access to big business. Naturally, the problem is that any stock purchase is a gamble, and that the “ordinary people” referenced above might not understand the risk and would lose savings.

Our answer to that, culturally, has been to dissuade investment. We surrender the world of high finance to the images of Patrick Bateman and Gordon Gekko because they make convenient movie characters, while our schools do little to teach people how to build an investment portfolio over time.

When politicians express concern about America’s widening wealth gap, the answers always seem to be income-based: Proposals tend to include increasing the minimum wage or raising tax earners who make more than $250,000 per year. These are placebo solutions. Wealth isn’t about earnings, but savings and investment. Since lower-income earners have fewer opportunities to do that (with less money to save and invest), wouldn’t the smart policy solution be to help them maximize those opportunities?

Part of that is learning how publicly traded companies work, and understanding the shareholder’s rights and privileges. Civics classes teach us that we each have a vote and a right to speak out about our government – and that if we have some sort of beef, we can organize and change things with enough time and effort. Similar lessons about publicly traded companies are, unfortunately rare.

Five Thirty Eight and Presidential Busts

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

On the heels of Scott Walker’s good week, ESPN’s political blog notes – accurately – that early success in political primaries is sometimes temporary. Likable – and well-liked – candidates (like Walker) don’t always make it to the nomination. One of the summaries stands out. Consider their obituary of Rudy Giuliani’s 2008 bid:

Giuliani, who earned the moniker “America’s mayor” after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, may be the biggest dud on this list. He had a better net favorable rating in early 2007 than every nonincumbent presidential nominee since 1980 except for George W. Bush. Once Republican voters found out how moderate Giuliani was on many issues, the jig was up. Giuliani never came close to winning a single primary.

The conclusion of the jig went beyond just Giuliani’s moderate viewpoints. The campaign’s delegate counting strategy put all the eggs in late primary states. More damning was the grassroots strategy – or rather, the lack of one. The campaign eschewed the retail organizing so necessary for victories in places like New Hampshire and Iowa. After being shut out of early primaries, Team Giuliani desperately needed to win the Florida primary to put some delegates on the scoreboard. America’s mayor finished third.

Notable in its omission is the candidacy of Ted Kennedy in 1980. Kennedy probably didn’t have enough pre-election juice to register in Five Thirty Eight’s rankings, but his failed candidacy offers some equally valuable lessons as the others: having a coherent message is the critical first step. A good, smart, campaign structure is vital as well, but its success flows from that basic message. After all, if you can’t articulate why you’re in the race, you can’t expect your volunteers to have much luck convincing voters to be on your side.

Giuliani and Kennedy how critical both elements are to winning any political race – together, and almost three decades apart.

Palin’s comeback

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Yes. Sort of.

Friend of the Program Matt Lewis has mea culpa of sorts at the Daily Beast regarding Sarah Palin. Since her big rookie year in 2008, Lewis argues that it’s been all downhill for the erstwhile conservative rock star

Yes, in 2008, Sarah Palin delivered one of the finest convention speeches I’ve ever heard (trust me, I was there), but she hasn’t exactly been channeling Winston Churchill ever since. Remember her big speech at CPAC a couple of years ago? You know, the one where she took a swig out of a Big Gulp and said of her husband Todd: “He’s got the rifle, I got the rack.” Not exactly a great moment in political rhetoric.

Palin indicated she was “interested” in running for President in 2016. Of course she did; without the possibility (threat?) of a future campaign, her relevance on the speaking circuit may dwindle. Let’s be honest: that’s the only place where she still has any clout.

It didn’t have to be this way. Palin made a conscious choice in her positioning during and after the 2008 Presidential campaign. John McCain rushed her into prime time, and she and her advisers decided to embrace the spotlight by offering folksy, populist rhetoric. That goes a certain distance, but only that certain distance.

Palin decided not to buckle down, narrow her exposure, and build a reputation (or, if you like buzzwords, a brand) around a certain issue set. She could have been the energy expert of the Republican Party, or the person pushing female GOP candidates from dog catcher up to Senator. Better yet, she could have put her head down and spent two or six more years as an effective governor of Alaska, building the stockpile of experience that was missing from her debut.

Most importantly, she could have – and should have – altered her tone. As Lewis notes, Palin has always been the victim of vague forces seeking to destroy her – the “establishment,” the “lamestream media,” and others have apparently taken turns  trying to pull the rising star back to Earth. There’s a value in taking on institutions, but people only root for underdogs who have a chance to become overdogs. Otherwise, what’s the point?

Soon after the smoke cleared from the 2008 campaign, good communications advisors would have told her to stop sounding like a reality show star and start sounding like a policy wonk. Instead, she signed on to do a reality show.

If Palin wants to regain some of the gravitas she has lost, she’ll need to do more than just rehabilitate her image and tone. She’ll need to become a policy expert and recognized champion for an issue or suite of issues. And she’ll need to sound coherent and knowledgable.

If she can’t, Palin has already hit her ceiling.

Gov. Jindal likes Jesus. So what?

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Reason – which I usually like – is upset with 2016 GOP hopeful Bobby Jindal for urging people “to turn back to God.” Jindal is quoted saying, “America’s in desperate need of a spiritual revival… We have tried everything and now it is time to turn back to God.”

As a libertarian, Reason’s Nick Gillespie reasons that Jindal’s perceived preaching is distracting from the real demons which vex our lovely nation:

No, it’s not time to “turn back to God,” especially when it comes to politics and public policy. What ails the government is not a surplus of religiosity but a nearly complete failure to deal with practical issues of spending versus revenue, creating a simple and fair tax system, reforming entitlements, and getting real about the limits of America’s ability to control every corner of the globe. God has nothing to do with any of that.

First, that Jindal was speaking to a group of religious leaders makes the Governor’s comments slightly more relevant. Jindal was not making his case to a broad audience, but trying to incite action among people who care deeply about their faith and who lead others who care deeply about their faith. For an audience like this, Jindal has to make the discussion religious; why else should these people care about politics?

More importantly, it’s worth taking a look at what roles religious institutions can play in society. Congregations socialize people. They coordinate an economic and emotional safety net which society has deemed necessary. In the absence of religious participation, where have those duties rested? It’s been the government, which was enacted less effective social welfare programs – entitlements funded directly or indirectly by a combination of complex taxes and reckless deficits.

These are the exact problems which Gillespie puts front and center, minus foreign policy. Perhaps he is correct that “God has nothing to do with any of that,” but overlooking religious participation as a part of the solution misses the point. One of the really good things that came out of the more recent Bush administration was the concept of faith-based solutions to social problems. If you have a strong group of people who want to help cure social ills, and the government doesn’t have to spend tax dollars on it, why would you try to quench that desire?

Gillespie is correct that Jindal – or any Republican – does need to be mindful of the way they talk about such things. Political rallies cannot sound like a revival meeting, and the American people – religious or not – generally don’t like being preached at outside of church (and sometimes not even inside). Yet churchgoing voters are out there, their views are important and, ultimately, that their altruistic tendencies can create alternatives to lessen the strain on the social safety net.

Hillary Clinton will not be your next President

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Way back in the day, then-candidate Barack Obama got a really flattering picture in the paper. Actually, it was the New York Times, and actually it looked like a leaked still from an Airwolf reboot.

When I first saw that picture, I believed that Barack Obama would be the next President of the United States. While that picture always stood out in my mind, just about everyone I knew who paid attention to the campaign that year had a similar moment of clarity where they believed Obama would beat John McCain.

It comes to mind now because, a couple weeks back, this horrible video started making the rounds on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfU3hI8ML30

Someone thought this was a good idea. It’s not simple to put this together – someone wrote the song, hired a band, scripted the video, and apparently wanted to make something that promoted Hillary Clinton while looking like the result of a drunken one-night stand between crappy pop-country and a third quarter earnings presentation. (“Hi, Rascal Flats? It’s PowerPoint. …Yes, I had a fun night, too, but… Well, we need to talk. I’m pregnant.”) It took work and effort, which means someone actually thought about this a lot. And it still got made, incredibly.

The imagery, from the shattered glass ceiling to the man getting on a motorcycle behind a lady is heavy-handed and condescending. And it shamelessly panders to middle Americans, who may love country music but probably recognize when a former Senator from New York is trying too hard.

Oversimplified, poorly conceived messages delivered with insincerity are nothing new to Clinton’s public appearances this year, from the time she started promoting her book to now. This video subtly underscores every negative she currently has. Clinton’s country music video projects someone going through the motions of a campaign as a formality before a Presidency she feels she is owed.

Is it any wonder why the jibber-jabber around Elizabeth Warren as a potential primary challenger has warmed so significantly in the weeks since this video came out?

RIP Black Friday. Cyber Monday, you’re next!

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Black Friday shopping was down. Cyber Monday shopping was up. By now, plenty of pundits have pointed out the obvious: that the shift reflects the dominance of online, on-demand shopping over fighting crowds to get into brick and mortar stores. No surprise there.

This isn’t a condition, though, it’s a symptom of humanity’s desire for convenience. And that means you can expect Cyber Monday to change, too.

Black Friday became a big shopping day because of its convenience. Most Americans either had an off day or a very light work day on the Friday after Thanksgiving, which made a quick trip to the mall more convenient. In recent years (particularly the last decade or so), stores have highlighted the shopping experience – such as getting up early to get great deals. But the convenience of online shopping – which can be done anywhere and at any time – trumps the convenience of an off day.

The idea behind Cyber Monday comes from an antiquated shopping idea, too. Ten years ago, the fastest and most reliable connection most Americans has to the internet was from the desktop computer they used at work. Home internet was often dial-up or DSL, and the smartphone revolution was still a few years away. But as this infographic demonstrates, shoppers have followed the trends of residential and handheld internet. Smartphone and tablet users grew from 30% of all online shopping traffic in 2013 to 41% this year. Perhaps even more notable, the bulk of shopping took place in the late evening, after 9:00 p.m.

The popularity of the online option is unquestionable. But just as the idea of Black Friday capitalizes on the idea of shoppers being in a certain place at a certain time, so too does the idea of Cyber Monday. The next inevitable move is for shoppers to abandon the idea of Cyber Monday, except as a promotional gimmick.

In fact, this trend has already started. Many online retailers have dubbed this “cyber week,” a nod to the fact that shoppers have plenty of flexibility. Online shopping isn’t going anywhere and should continue to eclipse in-store sales, but don’t be surprised if the concept of “Cyber Monday” evaporates from pop culture long before “Black Friday.”

Wow, was I ever wrong

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

I sure was pessimistic last week, wasn’t I?  After predicting a 49-49 tie in the Senate and losing two of the four key incumbent governors, imagine my surprise when Republicans swept the four gubernatorial elections (while picking up big surprise wins in Illinois and Maryland and a lesser surprise in Massachusetts) and blew well past 51 Senators. In almost all races, Republican candidates outperformed their public poll numbers, which points to really well-run, tactically superior campaigns. That’s one half of what your need to win.

The second half is messaging, and the fact that my third prediction – that minimum wage increases would pass in red states – was right on the money. Sen. Mark Udall’s “War on Women” messaging might not have worked, but you can bet the Democrats’ class of 2016 won’t fumble the issue so poorly as he did, and might find more receptive ears among the younger, single women who come to the ballot box in two years. Throw in climate change, immigration, and taxing the rich, and suddenly Democrats have a suite of winning issues on which to build their next majority.

That’s why the 2016 campaign has to start immediately – and it has to be about issues before it becomes about candidates.