I’ll have much more to say about Sasha Issenberg’s opus on the Democrats’ midterm turnout strategy when I have some time to write about it. I think I will be returning to it repeatedly throughout the year.
Right now, I only have time to give a teaser and my first impression. I will bet my right arm that the Democrats’ approach will work much better than a traditional advertising-heavy campaign. As a veteran door-knocker and community organizer, I may be biased against the media consultant types and the academic “framer” types, but everything I’ve learned in the field leads me to believe that the best way to create a new voter is to talk to them in person. If you can’t talk to them in person, then talk to them on the phone. If you can’t get them on the phone, talk to their best friends. And if you can’t do that, send them highly-targeted mail.
And, here’s the thing. The most important asset a political campaign can have is volunteers who live in the district or neighborhood in which they will be canvassing. Mobilizing the base is largely about mobilizing the politically active to do more than vote. You need them to work, preferably for free. So, contra Issenberg, I don’t think the Democrats’ more populist agenda items are aimed solely at winning over soft Republicans. Highlighting the War on Women and fighting to raise the minimum wage can win over soft Republicans while raising the morale and enthusiasm of the base at the same time.
The main thing is that the Democrats’ new strategy is based on social science, not wishful thinking. It should work precisely because it has been demonstrated to work. Attack ads have been shown to have a short half-life, so running them in the spring is a stupid idea and an almost complete waste of money. Unless you get them to go viral (in a good way) on the internet, they’re horribly inefficient at reaching the voters you want to reach.
The midterms will be fought by two teams with much different playbooks. Our playbook is better.
