A Waste of Time

Two thoughts on a theme – National first and Howard County-specific second:

-        The 2020 Democratic presidential field should be bereft of candidates who sought the office previously.  Invigorated blood is what is needed. Sorry Joe, Hillary, and Bernie.  Grab a seat, Martin. The last three Democrats to win the White House were all first-timers when they sought the nomination (’76, ’92, and ’08). Most of the folks who ran before (and whose names are bandied about as possibilities in 2020) are hauling about heavy baggage, fairly acquired or not.  We can’t waste time fighting old wars.  That said, I am certain we will see a doomed-to-failure sequel from someone.  Unfortunately for them, and the electorate.

-        Turning from national to HoCo news, I am getting more than a little irked at the namby-pamby-ness of the Invisible Campaign for County Executive.  I recognize that September is the time when this battle is likely to be joined but I am seeing Kittleman dominate the earned media space this summer.  It reminds me of how the Clinton re-election effort, oh, excuse me, the DNC spent the entire summer prior to the ’96 GOP National Convention beating the ever-loving tar out of the Dole campaign, defining the Republican nominee before he had a chance to establish his own narrative.  Folks can’t expect to win in ’18 just because they have a D next to their name.  Democrats in HoCo need to roll out a progressive platform, provide a solid rationale for their candidacy that appeals to voters, and show an ability to frame a debate. Right now, it feels like an opportunity was lost.  As former British MP Dr. David Owen said about the struggle over the direction of the Labour Party, “it will have to be a fight of passion and of conviction…we are fed up with the fudging and the mudging, we are fed up with slush and mush, we want courage, fight, conviction, and hard work.” 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Fresh Blood: 2020

First, a hand-drawn infographic!

Ok, I may not have captured everyone.  And some were favorite sons (alas, no daughters) in the earlier cycles, but bear with me.

This is a list of all of the Democratic candidates for President since 1952 who 1) lost once and 2) ran again.  A circle means they were the nominee in that cycle.

Some names not on this list: every Democrat elected to the Presidency since 1960 with one exception.

1) John F. Kennedy.  First time presidential candidate in '60.  Tried (unsuccessfully) to get on the national ticket with Stevenson as the VP pick in '56.  Won the nomination and General Election.
2) Jimmy Carter.  First time presidential candidate in '76.  Tried (unsuccessfully) to get on the national ticket with McGovern as the VP pick in '72.  Won the nomination and General Election.
3) Bill Clinton.  First time presidential candidate in '92.  Thought about it in '88 but passed.  Won the nomination and General Election, twice.
4) Barack Obama.  First time presidential candidate in '08.  Won the nomination and General Election, twice.

LBJ is on the list, and he did win on his own in '64 (against Goldwater, not the strongest opponent the GOP could have fielded that cycle).  That said, he lost the bid for the nomination in '60, came to the office only on the passing of JFK, and was clearly in for a tough battle for the nomination in '68 when he famously declared that he would neither seek, nor accept the nomination of the Democratic Party for President.

And of course there were those who lost on a national ticket as a VP or VP candidate and who ran for the Presidency later...and lost again (Muskie in '68 and '72 respectively, Shriver in '72 and '76 respectively, Lieberman in '00 and '04 respectively).  Mondale, of course, won in '76 with Carter (when he passed on the race himself, citing a lack of "fire in the belly") but lost in his own bid in '84.  Al Gore and Joe Biden have already been accounted for in this chart.

So...while the past is not always prologue...I would like to see some new names come to the fore for the Democratic Party in 2020.  History has not been kind to the "not one-and-done" club. You have to admit, we have run (and won with) some excellent first-timers.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

2020 Foresight

Happy Super Tuesday Eve!

When I first came to DC, my employer at the time had a list of "lessons learned" from Senator Phil Gramm's presidential campaign on the wall.  I wish I kept a copy of it.

So, here are some thoughts for 2020 presidential aspirants, based on the lessons learned, re-learned, and forgotten thus far in the 2016 election cycle.

1.  Define your opponents early and vigorously.  While the media historically serves a larger role here, I don't believe I have witnessed a presidential candidate as good as Donald Trump when it comes to establishing narrative frames for his opponents, with his re-positioning of Jeb! being Trump's crowning achievement in this regard (to date).  Governor Bush never recovered from the low energy tag and the characterization helped expedite the collapse of a candidacy that 1) never quite found its voice and 2) was fundamentally out of step with the resurgent populism that pervades the national mood.   Note:  Jeb should have recalled how effectively Rove et. al. were in defining Senator Kerry in 2004...when his own brother was up for re-election.  Remember swift-boating?  It went right to Kerry's perceived strength and deflated it.  Apparently Jeb forgot that lesson from 12 short years ago.

2. Exploit social media to its fullest  Again, Trump might be sui generis within the political realm given his decades-long fame/infamy in our popular culture and his understanding of how to create (and dominate) news in these early days of the 21st Century.  Future candidates should nonetheless peruse his tweets very, very carefully to see how he was able to shape conversations over the course of days, weeks, and months.  This lesson applies regardless of the milieu, Facebook, Twitter, or DodgeWaffle - whatever social media outlets exist in 2020.

3.  Don't hesitate when it comes to going on the offense.  You can't hang back and let your opponents define you, and when you attack when it is too late, it comes across as flailing from a position of weakness.  In short, don't be afraid to go "comparative" early...as long as doing so is in your best strategic interest and it doesn't subvert the candidate's brand.

4.  Establish your brand early.  To that point, you can't undergo a character transformation mid-way through a campaign.  Kasich came close though, he went from quirky, quick-tempered policy wonk to folksy, can-do Midwestern Huggin' Gov in what seemed like a fairly rapid metamorphosis.  It may not take him to March 16, but it allows him to occupy a distinct, and distinguishable, position in the present GOP field.

5. Be prepare to be flexible when it comes to strategy and tactics.  Not to pile on Jeb, but his by-the-book campaign was far too by-the-book.  They failed to adapt to meet the needs of the present environment, choosing instead to ignore the Trump ascendancy until it was far too late.  The summer poll numbers were more than sufficient to warrant a more aggressive posture toward Mr. Trump but the Bush team was too focused on running a playbook for a completely different ballgame.

6. The culture is inseparable from the political.  There is a book concept in here somewhere.  In a pop culture world obsessed with louder, vacuous and/or one-note, but media savvy individuals... is it any surprise that such figures are faring well in the US electorally?  I am not suggesting that 2020 presidential candidates should start appearing on as many reality shows as possible between now and November '20, but they need to think about the larger cultural background and factor that into their planning accordingly.

7. Don't over staff.  Walker.  Bush.  Just so much money wasted that could have been spent on voter contact.  No need for dozens of policy advisors, it's a political campaign and not a think tank.

8. Don't inflate your own expectations.  Come on Senator Rubio. The "3-2-1" approach set yourself up for failure right from the outset of the primary season. It is one of the reasons why he has not emerged as the main alternative to Trump (that and his disastrous debate meltdown, which reminded me of Muskie's crying (melting snow?!) moment...something that was so memorable and so damaging that it will not be soon forgotten).

9. Make it about "the people."  This is why Senator Sander's ads have been better than Senator Clinton's.  His paid communications tend to be more "us"-focused while Senator Clinton still spends too much time talking about how unique her candidacy is.  His are more dialogue driven while hers tend to be more monologue-oriented, and people like being talked with, not at.  I am perhaps over-stating the case for illustration purposes, but go ahead, compare the ads.  Remove the specific candidate and ask, which make me feel more of a sense of belonging?  Which are motivating?  Would Clinton be faring better if she ran Sanders-style ads?  Would Sanders be performing worse if he was running Clinton-style ads?  Something to ponder.

Feel free to save this and post it on your fridge.  The magnet can hold it for four years.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.