Patrick Caddell had a stroke and died last weekend. He was 68 years old, and if you are young enough and don’t watch Fox News, it’s quite possible that you have no idea who he was. Among other things, if they ever open a hall of fame for political pollsters and consultants, he’ll be elected on the first ballot. When he was still an undergraduate at Harvard, George McGovern hired him and utilized his polling information to successfully buck the Democratic Establishment and secure the party’s presidential nomination in 1972. If you’ve read Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail, you encountered Caddell there as the “whiz kid.”
In the general election against Richard Nixon, McGovern flamed out in spectacular fashion, but Caddell emerged as a hot commodity. A relatively unknown governor and peanut farmer from Georgia hired him for his 1976 bid for the presidency, and when Jimmy Carter won, his campaign manager Hamilton Jordan told the press, “You know why Jimmy Carter is going to be president? Because of Pat Caddell — it’s all because of Pat Caddell.”
He followed Carter into the White House where he had tremendous influence. For the 1984 campaign, he was hired by Gary Hart and helped shape his image as a fresh face and political outsider in contrast to former vice-president Walter Mondale. For 1988, he signed on with Joe Biden, which was quite a coup for the still-young Delaware senator. He followed that up by working with California’s Jerry Brown in 1992.
This was the heyday of Caddell’s career, which coincided with very difficult times for the Democratic Party. He represented upstarts and long-shots, and he did better than most Democratic consultants of that era. With the exception of Biden’s campaign, which flamed out due to both self-inflicted injuries and a major health scare, Caddell’s clients did much better than anyone expected. But that does not mean that he was universally admired.
By 1987, his preference for style over substance had become grating enough to inspire our now-editor in chief Paul Glastris to include him on a Washington Monthly list of Five Washington Insiders the Next Democratic President Shouldn’t Hire.
…Caddell knows how to win elections—he helped George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Gary Hart stun political pundits. Caddell has shown brilliance in analyzing the Democratic party’s problems. He saw the need to come up with a “better approach for the Democratic party than constantly trying to glue together another version of the New Deal coalition every four years,” as John McEvoy, a Hart adviser and Caddell fan, puts it.
But there is an aspect to his thinking that is bad not only for his candidates but for governance. Caddell believes the key to winning contemporary elections is appealing to “alienated” voters—that ever-growing group of mostly younger voters who are not easily identified as liberal or conservative and don’t trust government, politicians, or the parties. You can’t lure these voters with programs and stands on specific issues, so the theory goes. Rather, you must remain as uncommitted as they are. You lure them by attacking that which caused their alienation: the Establishment.
Caddell didn’t limit his aversion to policy to the campaign trail. After Jimmy Carter was elected but before he was inaugurated, Caddell wrote a 56-page memo for the president-elect. He advised Carter to focus on his image: “Too many good people have been beaten because they tried to substitute substance for style.” Perhaps for a wonky politician like Carter this was an effort at balance, but the strategy back-fired on Gary Hart. Here’s how Glastis described the problem in his 1987 piece, including a reference to Walter Mondale’s extremely effective allusion to a popular Wendy’s commercial that was running at the time:
Caddell understands polling, public opinion, and campaigning, but his knowledge of and interest in government is scant. As a result, Gary Hart, a man with at least some substantial views on major issues, became, under Caddell’s control, open to the charge, “Where’s the beef?” A good bit of beef was there; Caddell simply had no urge or facility for conveying it. He helped express only that part of Hart’s appeal he understood and thought was important—his youth, newness and independence from “the failed politics of the past.”
For Glastris, this kind of style-over-substance was dangerous for Democrats.
Promising disaffected voters…something you can’t deliver is more than just cynical, it’s reckless…Just suppose Biden picks up in the polls and wins the election thanks to Caddell’s strategy. Having failed to offer alternative views and positions, Biden, like Carter but unlike Reagan, will arrive in office with no mandate to do anything in particular except maintain his popularity in the polls—a job for which he would need the assistance, obviously, of Pat Caddell.
Caddell never succeeded in electing another Democratic president after Carter, but he did play a role in helping Donald Trump get elected.
Last month, when President Donald Trump toured a Boeing aircraft plant in North Charleston, South Carolina, he saw a familiar face in the crowd that greeted him: Patrick Caddell, a former Democratic political operative and pollster who, for forty-five years, has been prodding insurgent Presidential candidates to attack the Washington establishment…
…In recent years, Caddell has offered political advice to Trump. He has not worked directly for the President, but at least as far back as 2013 he has been a contractor for one of Trump’s biggest financial backers: Robert Mercer, a reclusive Long Island hedge-fund manager, who has become a major force behind the Trump Presidency.
During the past decade, Mercer, who is seventy, has funded an array of political projects that helped pave the way for Trump’s rise. Among these efforts was public-opinion research, conducted by Caddell, showing that political conditions in America were increasingly ripe for an outsider candidate to take the White House.
Caddell was a two-trick pony. His candidates ran campaigns light on substance and heavy on cynical attacks on the Establishment. It’s not hard to understand why attacking the Establishment seemed like an evergreen strategy to Caddell. Throughout his entire career, conditions for American workers deteriorated with every presidential cycle. Yet, with our current president, we finally see a kind of triumph of Caddellism. It’s a political philosophy so devoid of values that it can serve a McGovern or Carter and then be utilized without many edits to elect a Donald Trump.
Just as Glastris worried might happen with Joe Biden back in 1987, Trump was elected with a nebulous mandate to disrupt and drive change, but premised on unrealistic promises and unarticulated plans. It was, and is, a recipe for disappointment.
Pat Caddell still belongs in the Hall of Fame, but his record isn’t one future pollsters and consultants should follow. He catered to the disaffected but his main accomplishment has been to increase their number.
. . . and embarrassing coda to tag onto Caddell’s “legacy”, such as it is.
As you said in another post, all the Dem candidates will have to say HOW their policies (if they even have any substantive ones) will actually pass, given the Senate fillibuster.
Sanders answered that question today by saying he’s not supportive of removing the fillibuster and said he/we’d overcome it by the number of newly involved people (not just in his campaign – but after it). He may have more faith in the American people than I do, but at least when you look at his anti-establishment values and policy proposals, he backs them up with a plan (aspirational and hopeful though it be).
Hope the other candidates also try to turn their campaigns into movements for change that do a lot more than Obama For America ever did.
Responding to a question with unrealistic gibberish is not the same thing as having a plan.
The primary electorate will decide if its gibberish. He answered a question about the filibuster and said what will allow him to overcome it. People getting much more involved in politics is his hope and a lot of other people’s hope this time around.
Beats the hell out of offering incremental policy stances that stand no better chance in the Senate than the big and aspirational stuff Sanders will offer.
He was pretty up front and you ought to give him credit for that….even if you aren’t buying the idea of citizens rising up in a hyper-engaged way to help make these things we are all hungering for, happen.
You will need 60 votes in the senate and need a net thirteen democrats to win and hope there are no Joey the Lip among them. Sounds like gibberish to me. But as usual YMMV.
Ah I see I found my password just in time.
Create enthusiam because of authenticity.
Activate new and disaffected voters.
Use these to maximize senate seat flipping potential in 2020.
I ask you: Other than more and new people getting involved to flip senate seats how is ANYTHING going to pass McConnell’s evil hand? Hes already done some work by moving the window of discussion farther left. We need to push it more.
Its not just Bernie’s Plan, its the only plan.
One day soon God will call McConnell home. Or the Devil will, take your pick. He looks older than MY grandfather.
Turtles can live a long time.
It’s unfortunate, I suppose, that newly involved people can’t vote in the senate.
“Promising disaffected voters…something you can’t deliver is more than just cynical, it’s reckless.”
So much for the audacity of hope.
How about giving disaffected voters something to vote for, something to hope for, something to aim for, even if there’s no guarantee? That’s the pony’s first trick. Voters want politicians to guarantee that they’ll fight for us, we don’t expect them to guarantee a win.
And when they lose, that’s the time for the second trick: attack whomever prevented the win.
Honestly, what is the alternative? Only promise disaffected voters things that you’re absolutely certain you can deliver?
That’s madness.
Caddell’s approach won’t work for a Democrat is 2020. Not anymore. They would still be wise to take a page from Caddell. Beto O’Rourke has advantages over older, less personable candidates. But whomever hopes to win will need substance that’s not only well thought out but believable in terms of sincerity. That’s why I think Booker and Gillibrand are at a disadvantage. In an era desperately in need of political reform and curtailment of corporate influence, it’s hard to be the politician who’s hand has been getting greased up and down on every side for years.
I didn’t remember the name, but I remember an interview with him on PBS. In it he said, “I begged him,’Gary just keep it in your pants until after the election'”. Caddel might have elected three Presidents if Hart had more ambition than hormones.
Looking at the roster of candidates that Pat Caddell worked for doesn’t inspire much confidence. Except for McGovern none of them could be said to be progressive at all. Carter helped along the deregulation train. Biden? Haha! Hart? Look at his career. He was a New Dem/DLC type. Jerry Brown? Meh!! None of them would have ever been confused with Paul Wellstone, as one example.
“He catered to the disaffected but his main accomplishment has been to increase their number.”
I don’t remember Caddell’s work for McGovern or Carter or Biden, but I do remember him for this”
One and done: To be a great president, Obama should not seek reelection in 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202846.html
and this:
According to Schoen and Caddell, President Obama “has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship.” And “his cynical approach to governance has encouraged his allies to pursue a similar strategy of racially divisive politics on his behalf. “
and this:
Our Divisive President – Barack Obama promised a new era of post-partisanship. In office, he’s played racial politics and further split the country along class and party lines.
https:/www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586
and this:
Pat Caddell: Obama “Has Checked Out As Being President”
https:
/www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/07/14/pat_caddell_obama_has_checked_out_as_being_presid
ent.html
In the last one, he’s decrying Obama giving immigrant children amnesty to remain in the U.S.
So, I’m not surprised he was a Trump advisor.
Wow what a POS.
Pat Caddell’s focus on the how, the process, and not the policy goals is why I (and I watch a lot of cable TV news) flip the channel when the feature is the process and not the policy. I am not a fan of the likes of a Steve Kornacki whose focus is always on the politics of who’s ahead and who’s not. He never talks about the policy goals only about the horse race.
If we can thank Caddell for the unrelenting focus on which party is ahead and the treating of each as if they are equally worthy of our votes, then he belongs in a Hall of Shame. Nevermind his reactionary turn in recent decades. Maybe all this is why CNN (who does have some actual journalists and knowledgeable experts) continues to utilize former political operatives in what should be journalist roles. I am totally turned off by guest pundits ( like Jack Kingston and Erick Ericson from my state) who come on and spew the party line. Admittedly it’s more objectionable when it’s the GOP party line.
Disaffected voters. Are we talking about voters in Wyo. A state of 500,000 and maybe half vote. I suspect that over 2/3 of them don’t have a neighbors within 5 miles of their home that’s not a relative. These are the folks who sent another Cheney to DC. They are not disaffected…they are happy well adjusted people in their bubble.
Did anyone see the tweet below from August 2018 by the Director/Producer of the Active Measures documentary that was recently retweeted after it was reported that Manafort shared internal polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, the now indicted ‘former’ GRU officer?
"Can someone ask Tad Devine if he, while working for Bernie’s campaign, shared polling data with his old boss, Paul Manafort, through Pat Caddell? Cause we’re hearing he did."
https://twitter.com/jackabryan/status/1032417082070249473?lang=en
Might have to move Caddell from the Hall of Fame to the Hall of Shame/Espionage if it is true.
I think Tad Devine and Bernie are in more trouble from the Mueller investigation than people realize. The possible Devine-Caddell-Manafort-Mercer-Cambridge Analytica angle is but one of the many connections Devine has to the election and counterintelligence crimes that Mueller hasn’t charged Manafort and Kilimnik with. YET. Devine and Manafort were in contact throughout the 2016 primaries and Devine made serious bank from the campaign after making serious bank for years from Russian oligarchs and mobsters. Not to mention Bernie’s campaign breach of Clinton’s data (Steele Dossier said there were moles in the DNC), Bernie’s multiple NO votes on Russia sanctions, and his continued support from, and acceptance of that support from Wikileaks and ongoing Russian active measures against the Democratic Party. For example, Russian bots still love Bernie and are targeting all the other Dem 2020 candidates hard with the same goal of causing chaos in the Democratic primary and undermining the eventual nominee like they did in 2016. (If Bernie wins the nomination, they’ll drop everything they have on him to re-elect Trump and they have plenty.) See this article from today: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/20/2020-candidates-social-media-attack-1176018
I’m only half kidding when I ask: Did Pat Caddell also know and work with Peter Smith? Both are now dead (stroke for Caddell and suspicious suicide for Smith) but if the Active Measures film maker got information about Devine, Caddell, and Manafort, I suspect Mueller has got it too–especially with Gates singing his heart out for a reduced prison sentence. At this point, the unimaginable has become the logical conclusion and there is just too much already in the public sphere to rule out possible coordination between the Sanders 2016 campaign, the Trump 2016 campaign, and Russia via Devine, Manafort, and Kilimnik, with people like Caddell and Smith playing supporting roles.
Booman’s latest post ponders Sanders’ strength, but what is to come from Mueller may very well negate it in a hurry. I may be wrong in my connecting of dots, but people need to prepare themselves in case I’m not.