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.

  

Road to the White House 2016: Manilow, Mistakes and Mandates

Déjà Vu

Could you be the dream that I once knew
Is it you
Déjà Vu
Could you be the dream that might come true
Shining through
I keep remembering me
I keep remembering you

Déjà Vu

            - Lyrics by Isaac Hayes and Adrienne Anderson. Performed by Dionne Warwick. Produced by B. Manilow

What concerns me most about the most recent, incarnation of the Hillary Clinton for President movement is captured succinctly by the name of the highly visible Super PAC extolling her virtues, Ready for Hillary.

It all feels oddly familiar.  A campaign, or in this case, a proto-campaign, that seems more focused on the candidate than on what she or he might deliver.

Of course this is a grotesquely unfair criticism.  Hillary Clinton is not a candidate, at least not yet. 

The problem is her past.  In 2007 - 2008, she ran largely on a solid resume and the perceived strength of her brand.  She trusted that those elements, along with a top-flight campaign team and oodles of ready money, would be sufficient to clinch a first ballot nomination.

Depending on your perspective, a tragic or a fortunate (and possibly hilarious) thing happened next.  Some member or members of her quite well-paid campaign team - reportedly - forgot how delegates are allocated in Democratic primaries and caucuses.  This is important as delegates ultimately determine who receives the nomination.  They were playing for high stakes and some key person or people (who shall not be named here) couldn't be bothered to thumb through a rulebook.  Figuratively speaking, of course. At least that is how the story was covered.  In the fog of the fight, who knows where the truth resides?

She did catch a run of bad luck.  The American electorate was looking for a clean break from the Bush years…and her candidacy represented not so much a fresh start but a risorgimento of the previous Administration, one that still elicited mixed emotions, even from a fair number of Democrats.

Enter then-Senator Barack Obama and the Politics of Change.  He seized a moment, in part because he had a theme larger than himself – while still amplifying his biography – and because voters trusted that he would deliver on that promise.

Even then-Governor Clinton knew, in 1992, that he needed something beyond his record.  His campaign famously employed a compelling messaging troika: “Change versus more of the same,” “It’s the economy stupid,” and “Don’t forget health care.”

Fast forward to the present day.   Some heavy-hitting Clinton backers decide to launch a vehicle promoting Hillary Clinton as a potential presidential candidate.   Instead of linking it something actual voters care about or even a broad theme that suggests the outlines of a vision, they opt for “Ready for Hillary.”

When I first head that name, I thought: Are they criticizing voters for, presumably, not being ready for Hillary in 2008? Are they saying, in so many words, you were children but now it’s time to grow up?  Are they mocking us?  Hardly the inspirational stuff of “Yes We Can.”  More akin to “Why Didn’t You Before?”

I know, I know.  A Super PAC is not a presidential campaign.  But if you look at the roster of folks associated with Ready for Hillary, it is enough to give one pause.  If she runs, will she be a better candidate this time around?  Will she make the campaign about something larger than her admittedly impressive credentials?  How will she Connect?     

Or will we see an imitation of Clinton 2008?  She could probably get away with it, minus the ridiculous unforced errors, at least in the Democratic nominating process.  Democrats are so concerned about locking in the accomplishments of the Obama Administration, they want as close to a sure-fire winner as possible.  There is a measure of risk aversion and, on paper, Hillary Clinton offers the best path to 270 electoral votes…. possibly even a mandate in 2016, depending on how the next two years shape up.

In any event, I hope that the brain trust advising Team Hillary is smart enough to learn from the past, but not dwell in it.  

Stay tuned, as more will follow.