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.

  

Pandemonium-upon-Stilts

That sums up the past several months.  There is no doubt a book there, but binding Confidentiality Agreements most likely make that a non-starter.  

I have just enough time to offer up some brief thoughts on the likely contours of the 2016 GOP presidential campaign.    

The campaigns most likely to fold up their tents between now and Iowa:  With 15 heavies remaining (sorry Mark Everson), I believe that Senator Rand Paul (R/Lib – Au) and former Governor Jim Gilmore (R – No VA Car Tax!) are the most likely to quit the field between now and February 1, 2016 Iowa caucuses.  The latter might stick around until New Hampshire as his, let’s call it, “strategy” appears more focused on the Granite State.  That said, he might realize that a top 10 showing is not in the cards, and quietly withdraw at some point during the Holiday Season.  The former may decide to focus on his U.S. Senate seat, so keep a close eye on his early-state polling performances in November and December. If he can’t consistently cross the five percent threshold in the weeks prior to Iowa, expect a retreat to Kentucky.  One more to watch:  Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, wonk-turned-red meat hurler, the former Bayou Wunderkind needs to break out of the second tier.  He selected Iowa as the state that gives him just enough of a push to get past the carve-out states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada).  Unfortunately, for Gov. Jindal, he is facing off against Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX/The Second Choice), former Governor Mike Huckabee, Former Senator Rick Santorum, and Dr. Ben Carson for the social conservative vote. 

The campaigns most likely to be done after Iowa:  Jindal if he even makes it to February 1.  I believe that Santorum will lose in the Clash of the Most Recent Iowa Victors Match-up, with Huckabee being the better positioned of the two to do anything in South Carolina.  Santorum will wrap up his campaign on Groundhog Day.  Just in time for him to head home to check on Punxsutawney Phil.

The campaigns most likely to be finished after New Hampshire:  Gilmore if he is still in the race.  Former New York Governor George Pataki will likely receive his last hurrah of the primary season in NH.  Either former Governor Chris Christie or Governor John Kasich will be on life-support or decently positioned as the Bush/Rubio alternative after New Hampshire.  Senator Lindsey Graham may opt for a strategic withdrawal and endorsement of another hawk prior to his home-state primary.

So who is a lock to be an active candidate for the South Carolina primary?  Former Governor Jeb Bush, Carson, Cruz, business executive Carly Fiorina, probably Huckabee, either Christie or Kasich, Senator Marco Rubio, and businessman Donald Trump.

What about March?  I think the short-term calendar shapes up nicely for Cruz.  I expect a Huckabee exit as well as a slow Carson (and slower Trump) fade (all to the benefit of Cruz) and that Bush will struggle. 

Beyond that, I think Cruz and Rubio are well situated to go deep.  Trump and Carson could accrue a significant number of delegates, with Fiorina performing well enough to warrant serious consideration as a VP pick.  If this were a Democratic primary, I would give Kasich better odds as a dark-horse candidate.  As it is not, I think he might emerge as the primary Establishment alternative to Rubio, but will have neither the resources nor the skills to compete with either Senator Cruz or Senator Rubio.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.  

Opportunities

“Yeah there’s a storm on the loose, sirens in my head

I’m wrapped up in silence, all circuits are dead

I cannot decode, my whole life spins into a frenzy...”

Rumor has it that Mitt Romney was in his study, listening intently to this classic blaring out of his Klipsch speakers when he made his presumably final, final decision to not enter the ’16 presidential campaign.   Then, without warning, he hurled the caffeine-free Diet Coke clutched in his right hand into the fireplace…the crystal goblet shattering upon impact…and he screamed, “You can have Jeb!” 

Of course some sources are more reliable than others.  Personally, I believe he was quaffing chocolate milk.  Let the historians sort out that enigma.

For the true political aficionado, there is nothing quite like an election cycle with vigorously contested Democratic and Republican presidential nominating processes.  In the modern era, that means ’76, ’80, ’88 (more or less), ’00 (barely), and ’08.  Even then, 2000 just made the cut as Al Gore won every primary, with Bill Bradley’s high-water mark being a narrow defeat in New Hampshire.  He was done five weeks later.

[Side note: Pat Buchanan’s 37.4% showing in New Hampshire in ’92 against incumbent President George H.W. Bush made the GOP race interesting…for about two weeks.  Was it a serious challenge? No.]

With the latest reporting indicating that Hillary Clinton may push a formal announcement back to July, she is effectively freezing the field.  Oh sure, Bernie Sanders can keep living the Vermont Dream…and Jim Webb may find a way to run a campaign that won’t have the word “quixotic” permanently affixed to it (although his exploratory effort, to date, has been lackluster).  I have a hard time seeing Martin O’Malley make an aggressive push to secure the Big Chair, even if he decides to enter the fray.  Would he go negative on Hillary, knowing that it might cost him a spot on the VP short list or a Cabinet post?     

Will there even be any Democratic primary debates?  Clinton probably couldn’t avoid some forums if Biden jumped in, but why would he challenge Hillary?  His moment has passed.

So perhaps the tempest will be limited to the GOP contest.  Even with Romney out, two dozen legitimate potential Republican candidates remain, a figure that will probably settle down to closer to 10 – 12 by Ames, with a couple exiting shortly thereafter.   There will be action on that side of the aisle.

Still, it would be a shame for history to record 2015 – 2016 as a lost opportunity for Democrats to have a candid and thorough dialogue on the future of the Party and, more importantly, of America.  While a national conversation can take place without candidates, it is easier to promote an agenda when one is an announced candidate for the highest office in the land.  Can a debate be influenced from the Senate Floor?  Sure.  That said, a robust discussion of differing visions of government would be facilitated by a truly competitive nominating contest.  Obama was able to advance and refine his governing philosophy during the 2007 – 2008 forums and debates, as Bill Clinton did in ’92 when he faced off against Brown, Tsongas and the other Democratic hopefuls.  In both cases, it should be noted, the Democratic nominee went on to win the White House. 

And somewhere, far away from the spotlight, Mitt will ponder Whittier…

“For of all sad words of tongue and pen,

The saddest are these: ‘It might have been!’”

It would be unfortunate if there were prominent Democrats contemplating the meaning of those exact words in November, 2016.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.