spencercritchley.com

Written with Zach Friend for the Huffington Post. It would be easy for someone to think, as they are inundated with TV and radio ads, yard signs and precinct walkers, that Meg Whitman is actually running for California’s governorship. Such a quaint idea. But $120 million of self-financed glory really portends something more: an investment in 2012.

After all, let’s take a look at Meg’s actions over the last few years. In 2008 she acted as an economic adviser to Mit Romney’s campaign and later as co-chair of John McCain’s presidential campaign. Whitman spent recent days campaigning with Rudy Giuliani, who spoke of her ability to slash government spending and lower taxes (all traditional GOP national talking points). These actions represent a significant fraction of her total political experience. Which are germane to running California? That’s right, none.

Over the last few months Whitman has averaged nearly $1 million a day in spending, for a total approaching $140 million. Most of that, more than $90 million, has been spent on TV and radio advertisements attempting to build the Meg Brand. Polls show her down anywhere from 2-7 points.

What exactly would a Whitman presidency look like? That’s hard to tell. According to the Sacramento Bee, she registered to vote less than ten years ago and first registered as a Republican in 2007. This means she was eligible to vote for 28 years but didn’t. But you probably figured you could visit her website to glean some insight into her vision for California (after all, she IS running for governor of California, right?). So here it is, taken directly from her policy pages:

Meg Whitman is running for governor to help write the next chapter in our state’s great history. She does not accept the fate the doomsayers want to lay at our doorstep. Meg understands the magnitude of the changes that are required to rebuild California. None of this will be easy, but nothing important and worth doing ever is.

That is verbatim. If you’re like us, you have no idea what it means. The platitudes continue on her policy pages: “improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government,” “cut spending” and “institute a strict spending cap.” No details on how, of course. All the while she attacks Jerry Brown for having something she doesn’t; a voting record.

Whitman’s political record is so thin that it’s hard to know what motivates her. But all by itself, the gargantuan scale of her spending is powerfully suggestive. If nothing else, she is a businesswoman. As an investment, $140 million on one roll of the dice for the governorship makes no sense. But if the real goal is the presidency? Then we’re just talking about a down payment. Win or lose in 2010, her massive outlay builds a national profile for 2012.

Maybe Meg Whitman can’t beat Jerry Brown, even by outspending him 10 to 1. But she may justifiably be more confident about beating the lackluster field vying for the GOP’s next shot at the White House.

Written with Zach Friend for the Huffington Post. No ballots have been cast for November’s election, but apparently the outcome has already been decided: it isn’t whether Democrats will lose seats, it’s how badly they will be creamed. The talking heads have declared it so. But you know, political pundits and have a lot in common with stock analysts: they’re pretty good at explaining the future — right after it happens.

Electoral corrections happen. That’s a fact. And this midterm election will have a correction. But will November bring Democratic doomsday? That’s up to voters — and to Democratic candidates, who need to stop trying so hard not to lose that they forget how to win.

There is a roadmap to Democratic victory in November, and it’s simple: establish an emotional (and true) narrative, draw contrasts and let your field operations do their job.

Establish a Narrative

Republicans want to frame this election as about failed policies. It isn’t. But the moment Democrats start justifying — or worse, running from — their policies, that’s the moment they start losing, by leaving a void for the Republican narrative to fill.

It does not matter that the GOP’s narrative is false. What matters is that it carries an emotional punch.

For example: Have you ever heard a Republican refer to Democratic economic policies without using the phrase “job-killing”? Can you think of the Democratic counterpart of that phrase?

Neither can we.

We’re not saying Democrats should come up with something equally dishonest. We don’t need to. Democrats, now and in the past, have a far better record on job creation, and on the economy generally. (Go back and check the record: jobs, GDP growth, debt reduction, all better under Democrats, going back as far as these things have been measured. Do most people know that? Why not, do you suppose?)

No, we can and should come up with our own emotionally powerful but true narrative – and push it boldly.

Recently, President Obama has gained some traction by calling out the GOP for “holding middle class tax cuts hostage” to tax cuts for the rich. This phrase works. Why? Not because it is rationally persuasive (though it is), but because of the emotionally vivid image of being held hostage. That image captures the feeling of the situation — and feelings are what motivate people, not facts and logic.

Draw Contrasts

Starting around the New Year, the DNC started distributing a graph showing the V-shaped curve of job loss vs. job rescue under Bush and Obama, respectively. We’ve heard it called the “bikini graph”, since it’s shaped like a pair of bikini bottoms (or it was, before the recent eight months of job growth extended the right hand side of the V up past the waist band). Now “bikini graph” — there’s an image that sticks in your head.

But many Democrats seem to be uncomfortable with this level of simple, direct emotion. It’s like somewhere along the line we went from the party of shoot-from-the-hip working people to the party of repressed eggheads who’ve lost touch with their lower chakras.

The bikini graph makes a stark, visual contrast between the policies of the two parties. That’s important, because an election is a choice. People need to see the choice, and — say it together — feel it.

Let Your Field Ops Do The Walking

Now here’s where we get to the nuts and bolts. The pundits, as so often happens, are misreading the polls (think back to their record in 2008). Furthermore, and probably because most of them have never actually worked on a political campaign (or at least a winning one), they’re ignoring the power of field operations.* In a recent Politico/George Washington University poll Democrats and Republicans were tied nationally – while in the Midwest and Northeast, home to a number of tight races, Democrats hold a five-point advantage. According to Pollster.com, since the 2008 Election more voters have left the Republican Party than have left the Democratic Party.

We’re not blind to the fact that there is an enthusiasm gap between the two parties. But it doesn’t mean that losing big is the necessary result. Especially given the tightening of state-by-state polling, a lot will hinge on field operations.

Good field ops can make up 3-5 points on Election Day. Organizing for America, the offshoot of Obama for America, has, rightly, been concentrating on voter registration efforts, field training and fundraising in most battleground areas. It’s up to Dems to turn out their voters, using their superior field operation and voter registration edge.

It’s way too early to wave the white flag (actually, it’s always too early for that). If you want to reach voters, give them a reason to care — a good narrative. If you want them to understand what’s at stake, draw contrasts. And if you want them to show up, get your people out in the field. To have a better November, maybe we simply need to pay a little less attention to pundits and a little more attention to what we know in our guts is right — and what we know works.

*Michael Dukakis predicted the critical importance of field organizing in 2007, and we remember TV pundits gently mocking him, because, you know, Dukakis wasn’t cool. But he was exactly right.

Originally posted at Personal Democracy Forum / TechPresident, in reply to a post by Micah Sifry called “The Obama Disconnect: What Happens When Myth Meets Reality”, which claims that Barack Obama has never really been committed to the grassroots.

A thoughtful post, Micah, but I disagree with the assumptions it’s based on, in particular what seems to be an assumption that Barack Obama promised, or could ever deliver, perfection.

Obama has always said that the goal is not perfection but “a more perfect union”. And he has always said that it was going to mean hard work (think back to how many times you’ve heard that phrase from him), not something he would wrap up and deliver to us in the first year.

The Obama campaign was, and the Obama presidency is, part of a great tradition of hard workers that includes the founders, Lincoln, FDR and King. And I would say that the role of the grassroots is disappointing only if you’re dissatisfied with the most grassroots-driven campaign and administration in history.
Continue reading →