Tag: campaign 2016

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.

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:

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.”

Why Hillary Clinton Won’t Be President

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

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.

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.

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.

Lonegan beats the spread

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Lost in the news about the final shutdown showdown was Cory Booker’s 11-point win over Steve Lonegan in the New Jersey’s special Senate election yesterday.

Lonegan was always a long shot.  Booker gained national attention in 2009 and 2010 for personally shoveling snow for his constituents and allegedly saving one of them from a fire.  A big Booker win wasn’t only inevitable, it was the likely first step in things to come: He was the Democrats’ next rising star.   Known for being a primary opponent to Chris Christie, Lonegan was best known for his outspoken conservative activism – the type of sacrificial lamb a party runs when they know they are going to lose.  In June, Vega$ might have put the spread at, say, 19 1/2 points – and they might have started taking will-he-or-won’t-he Booker bets for 2016.

Lonegan was unsuccessful, but fierce.  He and his allies managed to crawl within 11 points (despite a bawdy interview from his campaign’s head consultant coming out the weekend before the election), and in the process showed Booker’s made-for-TV story is, well, made for TV.  His drug dealer friend T-Bone?  Most likely fiction.   The story where a young man died in his arms?  Not exactly how he remembered it.  That woman he saved from a fire?  Highly questionable.  The city that calls him mayor is deeply infected with violent crime.  He used to own a crack house.

After his first real election, Booker is already damaged goods.  The playbook to beat him – either in 2014 or in 2016 – has been written.  He’ll likely win re-election to the Senate, but it won’t be a slam dunk if the Republican Party of New Jersey fields a good candidate.  Martin O’Malley, Hilary Clinton, or any other Presidential contenders from the left have plenty of ammunition now.  Booker has lost the veneer of inevitability that he enjoyed, and shown that he isn’t the powerhouse he once seemed to be.

Sure, Cory Booker won this week – but that may be all he gets, thanks to Steve Lonegan.

Christie: Palin Redux?

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

So far, 2016’s most buzz-generating possible Presidential candidate in Governor Chris Christie.  Every move the guy makes in recent weeks has been viewed through the lens of implications for 2016.  Was he too chummy with the President?  Was he too combative with the Speaker?  Is he moderating himself to appeal to independents?

Back in 2011, it looked like Chris Christie could have stepped into the Republican primary and carved out an immediate niche as a forceful voice opposing government largess.  At the time, some idiot even said that political memories are short, so if he wanted a shot 2012 was his time.   That might prove true now, as Christie finds himself as the most prominent nationally-recognized Republican in the public consciousness.

It’s the same spot Sarah Palin found herself in following the 2008 campaign.  Suddenly, the governor of Alaska was the standard bearer for a party in disarray, while still trying to play the role of maverick outsider.  Palin proved ill-equipped.  (After all, it’s tough to look Presidential by shutting down “lamestream media” contact to communicate through Facebook posts.  Crashing the Iowa straw poll to steal headlines wasn’t particularly helpful either.)

Christie isn’t likely to step into the same pitfalls as Palin, but he has a 2013 re-election effort that will likely be colored by the shadow of 2016.  Factor in that the national media already accepts  Christie as the GOP front runner, and it makes for a pretty big target the governor will have to lug around with him for a while.