Tag: message

A Great Week for Team Obama?

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Megan McArdle might be onto something:

In finance, there’s an art known as “Big Bath Accounting” which is used to manage earnings expectations.  Here’s how it works:  if you know you’re going to have a bad quarter, you look around for anything else that might go wrong in the future, and you decide to “recognize” that bad news now.  Inventory looking a little stale?  Write it down, man!  Customers getting a little slow to pay?  Now would be a good time to write off their accounts as bad debt… The theory is that there is only so much bad news people can take in all at once, so you might as well cram all the bad stuff into one action-packed earnings call.

This is a couple days old, but the more you think about it – and the more news cycles turn since ScandalFest 2013 dropped – the more sense it makes that having all this hit at once is a good thing for the White House.

None of the controversies has been what any serious commentator would call impeachable, but each serves to damage credibility.  Imagine if they were spaced out a little more.  If the IRS scandal broke after two weeks of talking about the Benghazi hearings, and was subsequently followed by the AP/DOJ dust-up breaking a week or two after that, it would be far worse for all the President’s men.  Each scandal would be discussed in its own spotlight for a little while, but the timing would still maintain that “Groundhog Day” feeling.

In order for the current blitzkrieg to be as damaging, new information will have to come out fairly regularly over the course of several months.  That’s a lot of new stuff that would have to break, like the President said, there may not be that much “there” there.  Meanwhile, a public with a short attention span and a media looking for fresh news will find new stuff to talk about.  Democrats who are looking for fundraising and grassroots support in the mid-term elections will be slow to criticize the President.

On top of that, scandal discussion sucks up a lot of oxygen that could be used on other issues.  Higher taxes are shrinking paychecks, and Obamacare is making American health care more expensive and complex.  The policy environment is ripe for Republican criticism, but the line that connects a big government that taxes too much and overreaches on programs with a big government that swipes reporters’ phone records and harasses its opponents is not starkly obvious to casual observers.  And there’s always the chance for a Republican politician trying to overplay his or her party’s hand.

The last couple of weeks may have been tough to get through.  There’s still plenty of time for the scandals to fade into the background and there will be opportunities for the President to go back on offense.  If all this bad news was going to hit anyway, having it hit at once was the best possible outcome for the White House.

Sometimes a crummy week makes for a better year.

Gosnell, perception, and reality

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Before today’s Gosnell verdict, Gallup demonstrated that Americans’ views on abortion were holding steady.  Incidentally, “holding steady” means that most Americans believe that abortion is, at least in some cases, wrong.

To hear the election rhetoric last November, you wouldn’t think 72% of Americans feel like abortion should be completely illegal or legal “only in some circumstances.”   Remember the Republican “War on Women“?  Recall the successful efforts to link Mitt Romney to Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin?

In reality, most Americans – regardless of where they would fall on the issue of abortion – probably think that Kermit Gosnell is a monster and a murderer.  His conviction is no reason to crow victoriously.  Gallup’s numbers suggest that there is support for the pro-life side; last November suggests that support is generally silent.

People are pro-life, but they don’t identify with the pro-life movement.  For a movement that has gained enormous traction over the past four decades, conquering this hurdle is the next obvious step.

Benghazi and Cultural Stickyness

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

Today the Washington Post pointed out analytics that showed interest in the Benghazi hearings was largely older, whiter men.  That may have a bit to do with the demographics of people working inside the Beltway who would be most likely to tune in, but it won’t be the final determination of whether this scandal has legs.

One of the reasons Watergate remains so ubiquitous in American political is that its unique moniker has kept it alive.  When political scandals erupt, the suffix “-gate” is immediately added.  No one references the Teapot Dome scandal that way.

Linguistically, the Benghazi scandal has that potential.  Too many lavish, taxpayer-financed vacations for the President?  Travelghazi.  Donors receiving special access to the President in exchange for campaign cash?  Sounds like a “Donorghazi” program.  And you can throw in Cubaghazi for that one couple that raised a bunch of money for the President and then magically got to go to a country that normal schlubs aren’t allowed to go to.)

It won’t be testimony in a stuffy hearing room that gives the administration’s misdirection gravity beyond the  halls of Congress.

A Matter of Trust

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The catchy headline is that more people trust a guy who talked to an empty chair than the President of the United States, but that’s the Reader’s Digest account of the Reader’s Digest poll on the celebrities we trust the most.

Consider the top five: Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, Denzel Washington, Meryl Streep, and Maya Angelou.  This poll is probably fun to report on, but did the respondents really give it that much thought?

If Hanks knocks on your door at 11:00 p.m. dressed in drag and imploring you to help him move Peter Scoleri’s lifeless corpse,  that trust would likely wear off pretty quick.

Calling these people trustworthy is a version of the word association game.  It’s a knee-jerk reaction, and not necessarily rational.  It’s fleeting, but it helps contextualize what we read or ear about them – even the bad stuff – so long as we are distant from it.

On the other hand, 45% seems low for a sitting President, and it seems like a number that could get beaten down – maybe with a steady drumbeat of stories about Benghazi.  Not a deluge of Republican arm-waving and histrionics, but a steady drip of stories about inconsistencies in testimony or incompetencies in strategy will keep the idea alive that the President is not 100% forthcoming.  The reverberations could extend into his legislative agenda and clip his wings as he tries to foist Speaker Pelosi back onto the country.

Benghazi probably won’t drive him from office, but as long as the story has legs it will whittle away the President’s shrinking cache of trust.

More on the GOP Autopsy: Minority Outreach and Adam Carolla

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

One thing that came out of the poorly-named “GOP Autopsy” was the need for Republicans to reach out to minority groups.  That’s a positive point, and hopefully it will be done right.

It’s a good idea to recruit in inner city neighborhoods, and help candidates who champion free market answers to the big government corruption that has plagued cities like Washington, DC and Detroit.  It’s a bad idea to reach out to groups solely in the name of diversity.  That would be like introducing yourself to a black dude by saying, “Hey, do you want to hang out?  I need more black friends.”

A corollary to that is to avoid apologizing for policy positions, which is where Adam Corolla comes into this discussion.  The GOP’s messaging mea culpa came a week after Carolla railed on the Huffington Post for accusing him of racism.  The issue was Carolla’s stance that government solutions to social problems ignore the causes – such as the devaluation of family in black culture:

The family is the number one problem in the Black community. […] It’s simple. Fathers, stay at home, raise your family, do your homework with your kids, put an emphasis on education like the Jews, like the Asians, and let’s see what happens to the problem in 20 years.

Carolla’s response was even more direct:

But let me take this moment to now talk to all the p—–s that are out there trying to stir things up and turn me into a racist. I got news for you: Me saying parents should stick around and raise the children – me saying families and cultures should focus on education — is not radical or revolutionary. It’s the f–king truth.

Carolla isn’t going to throw his support behind the Republican party, but they can learn from his tone.  When reaching out to groups – women, young voters, or minorities – the message doesn’t have to start with an apology.  Support comes from trust – and trust can only come when people see you’re willing to “speak the f–king truth.”

Just be willing to speak it to their face.

The GOP Autopsy; Or, Stop Saying What You’re Doing

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The Republican Party released a report of deep introspection this week, and the reactions to the “GOP Autopsy” continue.  The report championed the need for the party to re-brand.  Naturally, that kicked off more of the “grassroots versus party bosses” and “Tea Party versus Establishment” arguments that have waged for months.

Those are false arguments.  The real failing of the “GOP Autopsy” is that it exists at all.  The report has quite a few excellent ideas, but the first rule of re-branding is not to say you are re-branding.  Making a big public show about a new image suggests that image is skin deep.  Memos like this are best kept internal.  When the memo inevitably leaks to the media, the right answer is, “Our party always looks at new ways to help great candidates bring their message to the people.”

The real answer to a political party’s woes – whether Republicans in 2012 or Democrats in 2004 – is to have party identity take a back seat to a good candidate that people can identify with.   A more welcoming candidate than John Kerry could have beaten George W. Bush in 2004; a more welcoming candidate than Mitt Romney could have beaten Barack Obama in 2012.  That makes organizing, candidate recruitment down ballot, messaging, and getting out the vote a lot easier.

(Sidebar: When discussing publicly the future of any political organization, it’s probably best not to refer to that discussion as the dissection of a dead body.  A corpse is a bad metaphor for “new and revolutionary.”)

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.

Merry Xmas, American Atheists

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The American Atheists annual anti-Christian Christmas billboard has attracted it’s annual outrage.  The Catholic League, as expected, issued a response, focusing on the use of iconic imagery of a crucified Jesus.

This has to be the gift that keeps on giving for both groups.

The Atheists can’t be winning many converts to their non-religious religion; their messages are muddied and non-persuasive.  Christmas and Easter tend to be times of year where people identify more with religion, so it isn’t the time to try to take a crowbar and peel off the less devout.  Further, using Christmas images like Santa Claus while arguing against the celebration of Jesus Christ sends a mixed message.

The Christmas season is replete with Christian imagery, which likely cheeses off the hardcore atheists who would write checks to an outfit like American Atheists.  Making a public statement during Advent is the messaging equivalent of letting off steam.  It’s great timing for media coverage, too.

Getting some press attention and giving donors something to write checks for is probably plenty for the enterprise to be called a success.  But it sure isn’t effective for advancing their organization if the idea is to create more atheists.

In so many ways, Christmas is a season of guilt; you may feel guilty about not keeping up with old friends, or that you don’t do more for the less fortunate.  Have you ever been in a Catholic Church in the weeks before Christmas?  It’s packed to the gills with good folks whose lives got away from them and who are trying to slip some extra pew time in before the close of the fourth quarter.  Maybe American Atheist reasons that people would like to shed that guilt; they are incorrect.

We do it because we want to go to church for 52 weeks, but it’s easy to skip a week – just like we give to homeless shelters and food drives and Toys for Tots now because we know we should have earlier, but didn’t.

Christmas is a time when we’re all a bit closer  to the people we want to be.  You might be a religious person who has disagreements with your church’s stance on something or other throughout the year, but Christmas is rarely one of those points of contention.

That makes it pretty easy for a group like the Catholic League to stand up, draw support, and win some favorable coverage.  Who knew they’d get such a nice Christmas gift from an atheist?

Weather or not it’s proof of climate change…

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

It’s cooled down a bit lately, but the last few weeks have seen the worst of what Summer offers in and around the Beltway.  A massive windstorm knocked out power in Alexandria, and heat indexes made mowing the lawn such and incredibly dangerous activity that it was to be avoided at all costs. (That’s the story we’ll go with.)

What does it all mean?  For some it’s unequivocal evidence of man-made climate change:

During their recent coverage of winter storms, Fox News has repeatedly mocked former Vice President Al Gore and cited the cold and snowy weather to attempt to discredit global warming. Fox News and other right-wing media routinely use snow to cast doubt on global warming, and internal emails from Fox News’ Washington bureau show that in the past Fox employees have been instructed to question climate science.

Wait, wait, no, I’m sorry, that’s an old Media Matters story, back when the eighteen feet of snow dumped on the Eastern seaboard was just “weather.”  There’s a difference, you see, between weather and climate, so a cold winter doesn’t mean anything for those looking to disprove global warming.

Yet this week, the anti-Keystone XL organization 350.org sent an email to their subscriber list highlighting the recent heat wave as evidence that radical environmental change is afoot.  Their leader, Bill McKibben, sarcastically needled global warming skeptics in the Daily Beast:

Please don’t sweat the 2,132 new high temperature marks in June—remember, climate change is a hoax…  On Friday, for instance, Washington set all-time heat records (one observer described it as like “being in a giant wet mouth, except six degrees warmer”), and then shortly after dinner a storm for the ages blew through—first there was five minutes of high wind, blowing dust and debris (and tumbleweeds? surely some tumbleweeds), followed by an explosive display of thunder and lightning that left millions without power.

That’s 350.org, whose big idea was to fund a giant ice sculpture on the steps of the U.S. Capitol spelling out the word “HOAX.”  You see, they were going to disprove climate skeptics by melting ice in July.  That was before they slammed on the brakes – ostensibly because they would appear insensitive to people suffering the heat wave, but more likely because it was just a really silly idea.

You can’t spend the winter preaching that weather and climate are different things, then using the summer heat to support the need for environmental action.  That’s not a scientific argument, that’s political hackery – though, come to think of there’s probably more money in simple hackery.

Too Conservative to Win?

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry have tag teamed to dominate the news cycles in recent days.  And as the opinionatti of the punditocracy (or whatever fun little nicknames you prefer) struggle to wrap their heads around what a straw poll victory and a late entry into the Presidential sweepstakes mean, they keep asking an intriguing question: Are these candidates too conservative to win a general election matchup against President Barack Obama?

This is especially true of the coverage of Bachmann; but taken together the Minnesota Congresswoman and the Texas Governor really display why this question is, to use the technical terms, BS.

No serious analyst of the race really believes Michele Bachmann has a snowball’s chance in the current residence  of Iowa native John Wayne Gacy.  If she wins the Republican nomination, she will most likely lose badly to the incumbent – maybe not Mondale vs. Reagan bad, but probably Dole vs. Clinton bad.  Bachmann will simply not resonate with a broad audience of American voters.

If Bachmann loses, it will not be for her views but for her tendency for gaffery.  Aside from confusing 20th century alpha male John Wayne with creepy clown artist/serial killer Gacy, Bachmann celebrated the anniversary of Elvis Presley’s death by wishing The King a happy birthday.  For many political viewers, Bachmann’s introduction to the national stage came during a horribly flubbed “tea party response” to the State of the Union address.

The trend line is evident: under the glare of the national spotlight, Bachmann is unpolished, rough, and prone to mistakes.  She is, it seems, an incompetent campaigner.  Audiences who already agree with her message will overlook that, but audiences who need convincing will not.  Those folks will become more accepting of the other, seemingly competent voices who call her extreme.

Then comes the media storyline: Conservative goes down in flames to Mainstream Candidate.

You saw plenty of it in 2010, when tea partiers were blamed for costing Republicans gains in the US Senate. Primary victories by  Sharron Angle in Nevada, Joe Miller in Alaska, and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware were frequently cited as an example of primaries run amok.

All three lost, of course.  Angle and Miller had run-ins with the media that suggested the pressures of the campaign were getting to them; O’Donnell’s campaign was only notable for its ill-advised “I am not a witch” ad.  Meanwhile, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul won their Senate races.  Arch-conservative Ronald Reagan was President; Moderates Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole were a half-termer, a one-termer and a no-termer, respectively.

A candidate has to appeal to voters, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum.  Barack Obama may have been the most ideologically-driven to assume the Presidency since Lyndon Johnson; he was also likeable and projected strength.

As he begins his Presidential campaign, Rick Perry will face the same question as Bachmann: Is he “too conservative to win”?  And whether the eventual Republican nominee is Perry, Bachmann, or even Mitt Romney, the Obama campaign will surely try to stick the “right-wing extremist” label squarely on their metaphorical forehead.

Candidates with good, disciplined messages don’t let those labels stick.

Cross posted at PunditLeague.us.