Embracing chaos

Matt Lewis likened President Donald Trump’s White House to the “Bronx Zoo” New York Yankees of the 1970s and 1980s, and there is a fair amount of merit in the comparison. By now, the hand-wringers so worried about the chaotic Trump Administration should understand: This is a feature, not a bug.

As President Trump prepares to  launch his policy agenda in a congressional address, don’t expect the chaos to dissipate. But, as I wrote in a post on LinkedIn, that represents a big opportunity for anyone laying groundwork for the 2018 elections – or, for that matter, future policy battles that come up before .

Trump’s answer on data is actually the right answer

Donald Trump says his Presidential campaign will be about personality, not data:

In his AP interview, Trump discounted the value of data: The “candidate is by far the most important thing,” he said. He said he plans a “limited” use of data in his general election campaign and suggested Obama’s victories — universally viewed by political professionals as groundbreaking in the way data steered the campaign to voters — are misunderstood.

“Obama got the votes much more so than his data processing machine, and I think the same is true with me,” Trump said, explaining that he will continue to focus on his signature rallies, free television exposure and his personal social media accounts to win voters over.

That’s exactly the wrong answer on an 8:00 a.m. conference call, but it’s exactly the right answer for an interview – which is something many political professionals miss. In the quest to sound smart to industry press, operatives can fall into the trap of talking too much about process. But voters don’t care.

Yes, the data-driven campaigns President Barack Obama ran in 2008 and 2012 were groundbreaking. But people voted for Obama’s message. The data elements helped them vote, but they made the choice, ultimately, based on the message.

In this cycle, polarizing figures with limited crossover appeal lead both major parties. Both presumptive nominees face divisions within their parties. Voter turnout could suffer, which could make the ground game vital. If the race is close, it will likely be the campaign with the better turnout operation that comes out ahead.

But a candidate has three jobs: 1) Ask for votes; 2) Ask for money; 3) Don’t mess up. Chatting about campaign tactics is not on the list.

Maybe Trump has a basement full of nerds chained to computers analyzing data sets to develop the winning turnout plan. Even if he does, it wouldn’t help him to brag about it. Even if the Trump campaign proved to be the most sophisticated data operation in the history of ones and zeros, it would only serve to amplify his message.

Campaign tactics may drive votes, but personality wins voters.

Why “professional politicians” win

This popped up in my Twitter feed today, and it’s a really good question right now.

Yesterday, Bobby Jindal joined Scott Walker and Rick Perry as multiple-term governors who bowed out of the Presidential race. Polls (albeit with questionable methodology) show neophytes Donald Trump and Ben Carson at the top of the Republican primary heap for now.

To interlope into this Twitter conversation, does an effective candidate for President have to be a career politician?*

The answer is: Almost definitely.

Sure, there are plenty of citizen-activists who have held very prominent offices without prior political experience. Jesse Ventura was actually governor of Minnesota once. Current Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson went from being a businessman speaking at a tea party rally to the Upper House on Capitol Hill within a few months. Arnold Schwarzenegger (and, for that matter, Ronald Reagan) held the California Governor’s mansion with little political experience.

But as with many walks of life, the need for tested expertise expands with the prominence of the stage. The amount of effort and money expended on Presidential races mean candidates have to be on their game.

Put another way: If some Jonny Yutz off the street grabs steps into the batter’s box against a junior college pitcher, they might make contact and get a base hit. Send them up against even a mediocre long reliever from the bigs, and it’s probably a strikeout.

On television, baseball looks easy, doesn’t it? When a batter strokes a single to center field, the swing can look so fluid and easy that it makes you think, “Yeah, I could do that.” We don’t see the hours in batting cages spent working just on the position of the batter’s feet, or the way his hips turn, or where he holds his hands in his batting stance. We don’t see the hitting coach who told him that this pitcher likes to throw get-me-over changeups on 2-1 counts to lefties.

With Presidential candidates, we see debate performances. We see stump speeches. We see polls and talking heads acting as campaign surrogates. We get mail and robocalls, and we see TV ads – boy, do we ever see TV ads! But we don’t see the phone calls to donors asking for money. We don’t see the person organizing volunteers to walk door-to-door speaking with voters. We don’t see the guy with three computer monitors telling the digital department that if turnout changes by 1.3% in Macomb County, the campaign will likely win Michigan.

We sure don’t see people being dragged to the polls, which is how contested campaigns are really won.

Could Jonny Yutz step off the street and, with some natural talent, intelligence, and practice, get a hit off a major league pitcher? Sure. But Jonny might not even know how to get himself into hitting shape.

Often, “outsider” Presidential candidates talk a big game about changing politics as usual, but fail to recognize that politics as usual is usual because it works. President Obama’s 2008 outsider bid offers a great example; for all the platitudes about change, they followed a very basic strategy of identifying supporters and turning them out. They simply out-organized Hillary Clinton in the primaries and John McCain in the general election.

Trump might be an exception.

As a businessperson, one would hope Trump understands the peculiarities of different markets. He likely wouldn’t launch a fast food company without learning what has made companies like McDonald’s successful. If Trump has brought that mentality to his presidential campaign, he might actually have a shot.

But that will only be if he recognizes that, as with any other business, there is an expertise to winning campaigns. Those who ignore that fact are doomed to lose.

*(To be a little clearer, let’s call a career politician someone who would have an elected office as their current title on their debate chyron. Trump, Carson, and Carly Fiorina would be noted for their accomplishments outside of elected office. Someone like Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum, though they have not held office in a while, would be more recognized as “professional politicians.”)

 

 

 

The fake research that almost had real impact

A campaign in support of same sex marriage used in-person conversations and personal stories – and it measurably changed opinions. Sounds legit, right? Well, it turned out the whole thing was fake.

The most sophisticated campaigns usually don’t bother trying to change voters’ minds on issues. Moving opinions, especially on deeply-held beliefs, seemed to happen over much longer periods of time and include forces outside politics. Candidates deal with the realities of their electorate. In many ways, a campaign doesn’t convince voters to agree with the candidate, but that the candidate agrees with them — and downplays the areas of disagreement… LaCour and Green’s study turned this model on its head — until other researchers determined that the original survey data had been fabricated.

Read more in this week’s post at Communities Digital News.