Tag: US Senate

Why Obama’s “On the Ballot” remark was secretly genius.

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

About ten days ago, President Barack Obama seemed like he had decided to write political ads for Republicans by declaring that his “policies are on the ballot.” Republicans crowed and Democrats moaned that it was a mistake destined to hurt Democratic candidates, who are running away from the president with cartoonish urgency.

The last few days have indeed been poor for Democrats, but that’s largely the doing of a set of candidates who either forgot how to talk or who looked at their wheelchair-bound opponent with the suspicious disdain of Walter Sobchak. That all this followed the President’s comments is largely coincidence. Their undisciplined candidates have proven as adept at self-destruction as Republican candidates have been in the previous three election cycles.

Throw in an unfavorable issue environment, and 2012 is an election that could get away from Democrats. But as a recent Gallup poll shows, Republican voters aren’t geeked for November 4 like they were in 2010:

deh8y4-gz02xiusjwspukq

In other words, Republican gains in 2014 will be as much or more the result of disillusionment and lethargy on the left as it is about excitement on the right. Two years ago, these voters were excited and motivated – which is why Romney winning the supposedly vital “independent vote” didn’t help him at all.

Will independent voters be turned off by Obama’s policies being on the ballot? Maybe, but if you’re the Democrats, who cares? You won without them in 2012, and the only way to win in 2014 is to drag out the people who thought it was so important to elect and reelect the President.

This video should scare Democrats, and not just in Kentucky

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

If you’re a Democrat Senate candidate, you should be very scared about the videos James O’Keefe is dribbling out this week, like this one:

And not just because his Project Veritas Action released a second video today. If you look at O’Keefe’s body of work/trail of tears, it becomes clear that not only does he understand how to use video to tell a story but how to use multiple videos to establish a narrative.

The smart money is that there’s more video out there of more Democrat campaign supporters in more states saying more stupid stuff.

Project Veritas has seized on the idea that Alison Grimes isn’t quite as pro-Kentucky energy as she’s let on, and now she’s stuck between her extreme supporters and the mainstream voters she wants to court. And every Democrat in a targeted Senate race has some issue where they have a similar disconnect with their voters. (Heck, Mark Pryor got asked about Ebola and he couldn’t answer for fear of providing fodder for a round of negative ads.)

Right now, senior Democrat campaign operatives in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Iowa, and Michigan should be wondering if one of O’Keefe’s crew has one of their people saying something stupid on candid camera.

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.

How the GOP won yesterday (and why Chris Cillizza is wrong)

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

filibusterChris Cillizza argues that Sen. Rand Paul’s Freebird routine on the Senate floor last night was not a slam dunk win for Republicans.  (Lindsay Graham and John McCain, both apparently still Senators, agree.)  Cillizza’s points are mostly valid, but also mostly incorrect.

Point 1: Obama is now the tough on terror guy.

The basic point is wrong; President Obama became the tough on terror guy when Seal Team 6 successfully carried out his order to put a bullet between Osama bin Laden’s eyes.  But setting that aside, Cillizza suggests that opposing drone strikes could put Republicans in the same camp as anti-war liberals were about 10 years ago.

Democrats were perceived as weak on terror not just because they opposed the Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but because they didn’t speak out one way or another for several years.  In 2003 everyone was a hawk except for Howard Dean; Hillary Clinton’s early support of the war was one issue that Barack Obama would use to pry away support during the 2008 primaries.

There’s another side to it, too: If you are going to oppose the policies of the War on Terror as a government official, you can hold press conferences, ask pointed questions at committee hearings, speak out at in-district town meetings, or engage in a host of other tactics that involve you talking.  While a sitting President and his administration can talk about their policies while killing terrorists, a sitting Senator can basically just talk.  So if talking is your only weapon, it has to be some pretty dramatic talking or you seem wimpy by default.  A filibuster works because it is definitely not the same as pointed hearing questions or town meeting blather.

Finally, while Cillizza correctly notes that drone are popular, they are popular because they Americans out of harms way.  There’s some space for moral high ground in saying those drones should not be aimed at Americans.

A definitive and unique stand like Paul’s is not a wishy-washy or knee-jerk opposition to the concept of war, but a strong and considered statement against a policy that infringes on civil liberties.

Point 2: Republicans are (still) afraid of the primary electorate.

After starting out on his own, Paul had some friends join him on the floor – including Republicans up for reelection in 2012 and a couple of 2016 Presidential contenders.  Was this a matter of pandering to tea partiers?

It’s hard to call it pandering when most of the people who joined Paul – such as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee – were elected on the wave of conservative activism that has marked Republican primaries of the last three years.  Primary voters have favored candidates who stood up for individual rights and limited government.  Is it a big surprise that these people oppose a government killing its own citizens without a trial?

The continued fundamental misunderstanding of so-called “tea party conservatives” is amazing, especially from political press that ought to know better.  Voters of any stripe want strong leaders – people who can stand up for strongly-held values without sounding crazy.

Point 3: It’s the economy, stupid.

First off, can we retire this now 21-year-old phrase?

Second, this quote makes this point a bit flawed:

And, in case you forgot, the [Republican] party still lacks a big-picture vision on the way forward regarding the country’s debt and spending issues that goes beyond simply saying: “No new taxes”.

That’s funny, because Paul Ryan’s 99-page Path to Prosperity isn’t just the words “no new taxes” written over and over like the manuscript in The Shining.  Also, terms like “reducing spending” and “entitlement reform” have been bandied about by Republicans.  Conversely, Democrat solutions seem to hinge on “new taxes.”

Point 4: DC process = not good.

That’s true – but a filibuster is hardly routine DC process.  Voting against cloture is a process.  Supporting a poison pill amendment is process.  But some dude talking for 13 hours to kill time and eating a Kit Kat bar?  It’s probably not the most interesting thing in the world, but it sure isn’t ordinary.  Jimmy Stewart’s filibuster was the climax of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (just as it was in Mel Gibson’s remake).

It was a public, and coherent, display of a small government school of conservatism that helped the Republicans take the House in 2010 and will be the bedrock of future success.  It won’t win him the Presidential nomination in 2016, nor will it solve all the Republican party’s electoral problems of the 2012 cycle.  But Paul’s rant might help the party start to find it’s voice again – which is a big and important step.

The Least Interesting Man in Washington State

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 2 Comments

According to this ad, that title is held by Dino Rossi.  It’s a great find by Project Virginia

This is a great model for an independent expenditure ad.  Instead of beating the viewer over the head with sinister music and wild claims, it’s creative and funny – and frames the election in a way the Rossi campaign couldn’t (and probably shouldn’t).  Best of all, it praises Rossi while poking a bit of fun at him – making it much more credible to the undecided voter.  With polls split down the middle in that race, Rossi could use any edge he can get.

Your thoughts and the NRSC

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

An ad from the National Republican Senatorial Committee showed up in my GMail this week, asking me to take a survey.  The survey was pretty basic – asking which issues I care about, and things like that.  But with unofficial Campaign Kickoff Weekend just a week away, it’s a good idea.

The NRSC has been taking some flack this week, but this is a pretty good idea – and not just because surveys and petitions make it easier to capture my email address and information.  Even better, it follows a good pattern – between this, America Speaking Out, and YouCut, there’s a consistent pattern of engagement with voters and activists.  That outreach in the context of the NRSC survey will help them craft communication that speaks a bit more directly to me when they follow up.

If you’re an optimist, it’s about connecting with the voters; if you’re a cynic, it’s about refining strategy so match talking points with the things people actually care about.  Either way, it’s a good strategy.

A quarter million doesn’t go as far as it used to

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Rand Paul’s $250,000 money bomb is being treated like a dud for failing to meet the lofty $400,000 goal the campaign set for it.  For a Kentucky Senate race, a cool quarter mil is far from chump change, but the dour coverage shows the value of managed expectations in setting benchmarks for online metrics.

Paul inherited from his father a reputation for both staunch libertarianism and savvy online organizing, which make his swings-and-misses at online fundraising and Facebook recruitment much more pronounced.  But Paul isn’t the only one who falls into the trap of easy metrics: dollars raised online, Facebook “likes”, Twitter follower counts, and other obvious numbers are easy to understand, so issue and candidate campaigns alike will use them as benchmarks for impact.

Two problems stem from this.  First, metrics which are easy to understand are not always easy to obtain.  Second, having big numbers doesn’t always translate to big impact.  Having 100,000 Facebook followers who don’t vote is just like having 100 Facebook followers who don’t vote.  Further, there comes a time when a campaign must balance the effort of recruitment with the reality of mobilization.

In the particular case of the campaign’s recent online fundraising attempt, Rand’s supporters may be suffering from money bomb fatigue, since the campaign has used the tactic regularly.  They might be feeling the pinch of a tough economy, and giving $25 where they would have given $50.  But none of that would be in the discussion if, at the outset, the campaign had set a reasonable benchmark for dollars.  There are plenty of completely legitimate explanations for why Paul raised “only” $250,000 – but what really requires explanation is the original expectation for $400,000.

The right way to lose

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

It isn’t going out on a limb to say that Len Britton likely won’t beat Patrick Leahy to become the next U.S. Senator from Vermont.  But he has used a couple of campaign videos to point out the problem of government overspending, and who foots the bill:

In another video, the creepy government guy hands Billy and his family a check for their share of the national debt.  When Billy points out that it’s a lot of money, creepy government guy taunts, “Better get a paper route, Billy!”

The videos have received national attention, because they deliver a message in a creative, funny way.  They’re also excellent examples of the right way to run an extremely uphill race.

I’m not very familiar with Britton’s campaign, so he could be an insane, foil hat-wearing Lyndon Larouche backer who thinks that the destruction of the Death Star was God’s revenge for the Empire’s tolerance of same-sex Jawa marriage.  But based on this limited sample, Britton uses his underdog status to make his point in a way that would scare off many campaigns in the thick of a close race. If Britton were to drop this strategy to rant about the President’s birth certificate, Sarah Palin’s baby, or some other conspiracy theory for the deranged the damage to his personal credibility will be dwarfed by the damage he does to the Republican brand.

Britton may wind up underfunded, and his videos may be limited to their viral appeal, and it may not be enough to keep Leahy from wiping the floor with him come November.  But this isn’t the last election in Vermont, so this video and the messages it carries can still set the table for victory – even if it isn’t until Billy’s old enough to vote.

Wait… who’s running in the actual race?

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

In this commercial, Sen. Barbara Boxer is seeking reelection by fending off Sarah Palin – who not only isn’t running, but isn’t from California.

Meanwhile, Carly Fiorina is not only challenging Boxer, but Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Countless Republicans will take to the campaign trail in the next few months railing against President Obama, countless Democrats will dredge up the ghost of George W. Bush.

It’s an accepted (and effective) campaign tactic, made especially famous in 1994 when Republicans used then-new technology to morph images of opponents into Bill Clinton.  So why stop here?  Why not run against Jimmy Carter?  Richard Nixon?  Maybe President Mitchell from Dave (the real one, not the one that was actually Dave)?