Tom Sullivan has a very thoughtful analysis of the outcome of GA-06.
Tom Sullivan, Hullabaloo: Collective Sigh
This is on target.
But there is also the improving “their electoral infrastructure” part of Marshall’s equation. There is certainly an over-reliance on a priesthood of consultants, data geeks, and technological terrors for solving what are essentially human relations problems. Voters are human beings, not data points or cattle to be herded. It might help if campaigns treated them as such. But if my area is any indication, there is also this. Few county organizations have built up the institutional memory and skills for running effective get-out-the-vote programs year to year, mid-term to presidential to municipal. Activists age out of high-intensity campaign work and take what they’ve learned (if anything) with them. Many smaller counties rely on national coordinated campaigns to parachute in every four years (if they do) to tell them what to do when the ambitious twenty-something staffers don’t know themselves.
Winning an election is not just a contest of ideas; it is a contest of skills. At a meeting recently, one county Democratic officer expressed interest in learning about all these “high-tech” tools we use. I think that meant computers. Democrats need an upgrade from the grassroots up as much as from the top down.
Welcome to the real world after the death of the donkey. That is, Democrats in most Republican majority areas are fighting against a negative perception of their brand, carefully cultivated over three decades.
That factor seemed to be worth 5%-10% to Republicans in an otherwise close race. In 2016, it likely made the difference in a lot of states. The brand itself is a lead weight. That’s why 2014 and 2016 were existential elections for both parties. And why Trump is the lead weight for the Republicans (the only sign of hope).
A well deserved negative perception.
When the (R) party went off the rails, the (D) party could deteriorate because they were the only game in town. They have deteriorated so much that they are WORSE than the 1950’s (R) party.
The people who managed to wrest control of our local party from the dinosaurs appear to be very savvy about the need to use databases and use them well. My impression is that we’ll be very plugged in come 2018, and if enough of our state’s local parties are following suit, that will make the difference between the GOP losing its supermajority status in our state’s legislatures or maintaining them, as well as possibly getting at least on Dem back in the House (our state capital’s district is the obvious target). We need to be plugged in, and we also need to have candidates who can run on positive ideas, rather than simply on a “Trump sucks” message. Ours is a rural enough state to where we could really experiment with messages that could appeal to rural area voters (I want to study the SC-5 race a bit more closely to see what went well enough to make that race close enough to nearly flip that seat).
I am not sure I understand Sullivan’s point.
My own opinion is data geeks (like myself) are symptoms of a larger problem: the inability to actually persuade people.
The truth is the data work isn’t that hard. A three day training course for someone with a basic knowledge of statistics and you can do 95% of what they are doing on the most sophisticated campaign.
Campaigns are about persuasion. This means listening so that you understand your audience well enough, and then addressing their concerns.
All the linear regressions and algorithms in the world are not going to tell you how to persuade someone. They can give you a broad brush of your audience but no more.
The idea of persuading people seems to threaten more than a few Democrats. They say it is useless and people only vote their hate or something else.
Part of it is a worry about pandering to racists and there is some truth in that worry. But most of it is really about a loss of control. If new people come into the party they may no longer control it.
It’s why Bernie is a threat. Bernie has spent a career persuading people. He is nowhere nearly as good at it as some of his supporters think he is, but he isn’t scared of an argument.
It really isn’t that complicated. Identifying who we lost from 2012 isn’t that hard. And it really isn’t hard to create a program that would seek to make sure all voters had ID’s so they could vote.
It takes volunteers, and that requires inspiring people in their local communities to go do the work.
And that is the core problem, and has been since 2008.
Sullivan’s point about North Carolina is that the institutional memory at the county level in small counties about how to run a local campaign is about gone in some counties that haven’t voted Democratics in a decade or more and is slipping in others. This affects margins, social buzz, and competitiveness. In some small counties in NC, the population is small enough that county-level Democratic organization is pretty much collapsed. Candidates have to rebuild networks every campaign and depend on those who vote party-line Democratic from a national or state context or from habit.
The issue is a mixture of vision, willingness to persuade, and local GOTV and campaign skills.
Yes, volunteers in local communities is the weak point, and intimidation from Republicans is a tactic meant to keep it that way. Employers, relatives, and others in personal networks have been playing hardball for two decades of Dittohead nonsense. That makes a lot of people shy.
Ensuring that those with IDs have those IDs recognized at the polling place has been the local issue here in North Carolina. Especially when the the law has been vacated by the courts but still enforced by an aggressive local board of elections and local partisans.
For the party establishment, it very much is about a loss of control. Where there are Democratic elected officials, those officials are very instrumental in a lot of local business-government transactions. Some might get more scrutiny with new activists in the party.
Also note that Sullivan is from western North Carolina adjacent to areas that have been Republican for a very long time.
Freudian slip? More of those “darn stupid voters/kids that don’t know anything,” not even how persuasive a candidate it.
Doubt you intended it that way, but that’s how it came off. What’s the baseline for good, excellent, and superior persuasive political speech that Bernie’s supporters should be using to see that he’s not all that good?
The persuasion that almost all politicians primarily engage in is selling themselves. Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have primarily been persuading on economic matters which led to both of them getting elected (Bernie for many decades for three different positions and Warren a Senate seat first time out). Those selling themselves as they cite and refer to specific issues/policies need not concern themselves with the consistency and cohesiveness of those policies. That also leads to their support being less stable over time. That’s why Sanders has the highest approval rating today,
There is more than a little hero worship around Sanders, which kind of freaks me out to be honest. I am part of some groups and I think man, the guy is just a politician at the end of the day.
He talks endlessly about expanding turnout, and how that is the solution.
Except in Vermont he didn’t, with the exception of the first of couple elections in Burlington. Ironically he won his first election in a very LOW turnout election. Statewide I don’t recall any evidence he won by expanding turnout.
Honestly I am not even sure that it was on economic issues that he won on initially. My memory of ’88 (when he beat the Dem in a 3 way race) is pretty hazy, but in general it was a more of a sense that he had been a good mayor, he spoke his mind, and was independent. He fit Vermont’s temperament.
By 1990 he was basically the Democratic candidate in a Democratic trending state.
Certainly his national appeal was based on economic issues. But it would be a mistake, i think, to attribute all of his appeal to ideology.
Which is a problem. Because if his appeal is based on who he is and not just what be believes, it is hard to think of someone who can take his place in 2020.
To get back to your point (hah!) I think Bernie believes it is immoral to write anyone off. I also think, more than most politicians, he believes it is possible to change minds.
In this sense Bernie is actually a pretty optimistic and hopeful guy. It is one of the things people like about him.
There you go again. Three made it into the consciousness of most Americans. The one that garnered the most respect and least amount of “hero worship” was Bernie because his supporters were the least ignorant and most difficult to persuade.
What creeps me out is the hero worship of Trump and Hillary. Neither have even earned respect public acts.
There are tangible and very good reasons why many Sanders supporters are sticking with him at this time. First, only because IMHO it’s the most important, movements require an organizing principle which often means a leader. Absent that they have no staying power. Second, Sanders has become a national face and has a high net approval rating. Who would be stupid enough to throw that under the bus? Finally, Bernie supporters are learning the enormity of the task before us. We all have to be more like Sanders and Corbyn — optimistic and keep on keeping on.
Frankly, you sound (and not for the first time) like The Guardian self-styled “progressives” that for nearly two years called for Corbyn to go away and let Labour be ruled by the Blairites. With voices from the peanut gallery, such as J K Rowling and Stephen Hawking, spouting out approvingly.
I went door to door in the fucking cold for the guy in Iowa.
So yea, take that stuff about the Guardian and shove it. I mean it Marie: I worked for the guy. Your comparison to Blairites is bullshit.
Hero worship about any politician creeps me out, be it about Clinton, or Trump or Sanders. The Clinton sycophants make my skin crawl.
I am far from abandoning the politician I have known for 35 years.
I just don’t think he is a god among men. And some in these groups seem to think he has every answer under the sun.
You’re dismissing his supporters. I don’t think they are naive and are idolizing Sanders. They’re well aware of his age and that he’s barely on the left. It’s just that at the moment and in political office, the left doesn’t exist. And they’d be happy if someone else could be handed the reins and ride this bucking bronco over finish lines.
Sanders doesn’t have the interest or operational skill set to run what’s required. So it’s all a bit chaotic and very messy.
Me too.
Sort of like “Ross for Boss”.
Charlie Pierce:
Gianforte (MT) isn’t a Georgia peach either and doubt KS and SC have sent any less awful persons to DC in 2017.