(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Snatching Defeat From the Jaws of Victory, or Not [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']
Date: 2022-09-08
Democrats have shown a remarkable ability to snatch defeat from he jaws of victory. Hillary did it by emphasizing the deplorable nature of Trump and his most ardent followers while Trump’s messaging made creating jobs his priority. McAuliffe did it by trying to convince Virginians that Youngkin was a Trump clone while Youngkin was talking education. The campaigns assumed in each case that those themes that most moved the party’s core would similarly appeal to people on the fence about whom to vote for or whether to vote. Will this happen again. Although Democrats once felt that devastating November losses were inevitable, the odds now seem to favor the Democrats in the Senate, and there is hope that despite Florida’s gerrymandering and the negation of gerrymandering in New York, the party can retain control of the House. Conventional campaign thinking can, however,dash these hopes and lead to another gloomy election postmortem. Five mistakes as not just possible but, if past practices are a guide, likely.
s
1. (MISTAKE) Make the Election a Referendum on Biden rather than on Republicans.
Biden’s popularity will affect Democrats’ chances in November. Improvements in voters’ views of Biden are good news even if his favorability ratig is still well below 50%. But even if Biden’s favorability ratings could be raised by messaging designed to boost his popularity, investing in such messaging is unlikely to pay off. Voters’ views of Biden will be largely determined by inflation rates,unemployment rates and the price of gas no matter what messages are sent on his behalf. Moreover, the 2020 House elections suggest that his coattails are short regardless. Biden’s recent legislative successes, like the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, are substantial, but most payoffs from these acts will not hit voters’ pockets until long after November 2022.
Rather than boosting Biden, Democratic messaging should aim at boosting the value of the party label. One focus should be on popular policies embodied in House-passed legislation opposed by House Republicans and killed by Republicans in the Senate, Voters should be repeatedly reminded of these thwarted initiatives and of their possibly renewed viability if Democrats retain control of the House and increase their advantage in the Senate. Repeated reminders will increase the salience of what is, for the most part, low visibility information. Special attenti0n should be given to what is perhaps the clearest example of Republican obstructionism - the Republican’s “success” in preventing privately ensured and uninsured diabetics from enjoying the benefits of a $35 monthly cap on insulin costs. The Republican obstructionism could prove to be a political “own goal” that has seldom been equaled. Not only did the Republican position suggest cruel indifference to the physically ill, but also those harmed will include many voters, including Trump supporters, whose choices might be swayed by framing a vote for the Republican candidate as a vote to keep insulin prices high.
Democrats should also build on voter desires for a government that will act effectively in their interest, and take advantage of the fact that most people have an optimism bias which leads them to want to believe that things will improve. Votes can be gained by arguing that electing Republicans to Congress is to prefer stagnation to progress. Some celebration of Biden’s accomplishments can be part of making the case for Democratic Congressional candidates, but in most House and Senate races, the emphasis should not be on Biden or the candidates as people but on promises for a better life that Democratic control of the House and Senate might enable and Republican control of either house will doom. History tells usn that at least since Gingrich’s Contract With America midterm elections have been nationalized whether the party in the White House wanted this or not. Democrats should embrace the idea of a nationalized election rather than approach each race is if their candidates are tubs in their own bottoms. National party organizations and similar funders should take the lead in organizing this aspect of the campaign. Candidates in state or local races can focus on their own merits and the flaws of their opponents, while also coordinating with nationalized party-oriented messaging.
2. (MISTAKE) Treat Abortion as a Magic Bullet No Matter What the Target
The Supreme Court’s decision in Hobbs, which reversed Roe v. Wade, is a gift for Democrats running in November. Its effects have been seen in a Kansas constitutional referendum, in a New York special election, and in trends in new-voter registration. Still, Democrats must be cautious using this gift. In some Congressional races, the election can be framed as a referendum on abortion, and in most races this will work to the Democrat’s advantage. But in all districts there will be voters for whom abortion is not the issue of greatest concern, and in many districts such voters will be the majority. Moreover, in many places voters with no strong feelings about abortion may be swing voters. This will be true even if abortion rights are the central issue, since votes accruing to pro-choice Democrats thanks to Hobbs will be partially offset by the greater mobilization of forced birthers when abortion rights are at the focus of a contest. In addition, money can be wasted on abortion-related messaging by repeatedly targeting those already convinced or unconvinceable. Also, messages advocating the principle at the heart of the pro-choice movement – that it is for the woman to decide whether to carry a fetus to term – may be less effective in persuading voters on the margin than messages that address peripheral issues, like the danger that a woman who miscarries will be denied needed medical assistance or charged with a crime. Even those who consider themselves “pro-life,” may fear such consequences of abortion bans and become persuadable voters.
The greatest benefit that Hobbs may provide Democrats in 2022 may take the form of stimulating volunteerism and turnout among supporters of abortion rights. Already existing pro-choice organizations and infrastructure can be expanded and used to implement grass roots strategies aimed at identifying likely Democratic voters and persuading them to register and vote. Left-leaning funders, whether abortion rights are a priority interest or not, should spend money to increase the reach and campaign effectiveness of organizations dedicated to protecting abortion access. By the same token, pro-choice organizations and their donors should realize that the short-term goal is not to increase acceptance of pro-choice policies. Rather it is to elect Democrats to the Congress and to state legislatures. Advocacy of pro-choice positions is only a means to this end. In some races, it will not be the best means. Where it is not, pro-choice funders and organizations should act and spend in ways likely to sway and turnout voters without regard to the organizations’ or their supporters’ core concerns. Depending in the race, this could mean touting Biden’s job creation numbers, emphasizing dangers of climate change, or highlighting the shady business practices of the Republican in the race. It might even mean ferrying anti-choice voters to the polls so long as it is certain that they will vote Democratic despite their differences with the party’s position on abortion. Regardless of why Democrats win races, if enough Democrats are elected, pro-choice advocates will have legislatures friendly to their aims.
Planned Parenthood has said it is amassing a $50 million war chest to elect pro-choice candidates. If its messaging budget is spent entirely on messages advocating for its pro-choice and related positions, some of this money will not have been best spent. An anthem of the civil rights movement contains the best advice, “Keep Your Eyeson the Prize.” The prize is electing democrats. It is not converting people to favored positions on abortion rights, or climate change, gun control, student loan forgiveness, or whatever. A vote gained because an anti-choicer fears a criminal investigation if a loved one miscarries counts the same as a vote gained because a person is passionate about a woman’s right to choose.
3. (MISTAKE). Go Big When You Should Go Small
Democrats must convey their accomplishments while casting blame on Congressional Republicans for their failed promises and plans. Perhaps the lowest hanging exploitable fruit is the Democrats’ failed effort to lower everyone’s maximum monthly insulin charge to $35, but there is so much more. The issue is how to most effectively send needed messages. Artistic, reputational,and financial incentives are likely to lead campaign professionals to favors spending money on expensive, well designed, attention grabbing 30 second and minute-long or longer television commercials and internet productions. There is, however, reason to believe that producing and delivering fewer grand productions and more shorter, cheaper and simpler messages would be a betterf use of campaign funds. Not only would the same budget support many more messages if ads consisted of simple statements no more than 10 or 15 seconds long, but if the points candidates wish to make are repeated with slight variations across a variety of media (e.g. radio, television, yard signs, Twitter, Facebook, newspaper ads,Tic-Toc, etc.) what cognitive psychologists call the “fluency heuristic” is likely to be triggered. This heuristic associates the ease of recalling a claim with the truthfulness of the claim. The more often a message has been heard and the more different ways it has been conveyed, the larger the likely effect.
4. (MISTAKE) Downplaying or Denying Responsibility for Bad News, Rather than Reframing the Issue.
Politicians instinctively try to dodge blame or downplay harms that have occurred on their watch. The temptation to do this is particularly strong when criticisms, like the claim that Biden is responsible for the high price of gas, are unjustified or greatly exaggerate a person’s responsibility while ignoring more consequential contributors, as with the blame placed on Biden and Congressional Democrats for high inflation. Yet attempts by the President and his defenders to convince voters of his limited responsibility for these ills or to downplay experienced harms have gained little traction. Politicians also like to claim credit for good things that happen on their watch, even when they have done little to bring them about. These claims, like the claim that the gas price crisis is over or that inflation is being tamed, have their own dangers. What appears to be a trend in Augustand September could reverse itself come October.
Democratic vulnerabilities due to gas prices and inflation will not be erased by downplaying the pain they cause or by arguing that things are improving. So long as people are still feel strapped because of the effects of higher prices, attempts to minimize experienced harms suggest a party indifferent to the suffering of its constituents. The better approach is to acknowledge the pain and then to reframe the issue so that the question is not whether Biden and the Democrats are to blame for the high prices, but is instead which party’s proposed solutions are more in keeping with voters’ wishes. On gas prices, Democrats can advertise steps they have taken to bring to prices down and the likely long-term effects on gas prices of their support for cleaner energy. This can be contrasted this with Republican plans to allow even more drilling than recent legislation has provided, not only despoiling pristine lands but also having no effect on gas prices for at least the next several years. On inflation Democrats can contrast plans to lower inflation by reducing drug prices, taking money out of the economy by taxing the rich, and building cost-reducing infrastructure with Republican support for policies that will increase unemployment, raise credit card interest and mortgage rates, and continue a system in which billionaires enjoy lower tax rates than their secretaries. The goal iso transform potential economic vulnerabilities so that the election is not seen as referendum on how well Biden or the Congress have done with respect to economic issues but is instead seen as a choice between Democratic and Republican plans for dealing with acknowledge harms.
5. (MISTAKE) Ignoring Rather than Refuting Lies and Attacks.
Conventional thinking counsels against making much of opponents’ false or misleadingly exaggerated attacks. The idea, supported by some research, is that attempts at refutation can backfire due to the fluency heuristic mentioned above. People recall the part of a refutation that referenced the false attack more than they do the material that refuted it. This makes the false claims seem more credible. However, recent research on fake news indicates that responding to false attacks by refuting them almost always works to some extent as intended and almost never backfires. Refutations should be artfully crafted. They are more successful if embedded in “stories” that explain why an attack is false, with an alternative true story provided. Negating false claims is even more effective if they can be delivered as pre-rebuttals - refutations of expected falsehoods made before lies have been told. Refutations of Republican lies and exaggerations, should truthful, however, and not greatly exaggerated. Otherwise the claim that an opponent has lied can be dismissed with the claim that “both sides do it,” and the falsehood is likely to remain in the memory of those who have dismissed the refutation.
Conclusion
The mistakes I outline above are easy to make. This is not just because they highlight ways of reasoning that are likely to be shared by candidates and their campaign managers, but also because there is a sense in which they are not mistakes. Doing some of what I suggest is wrong, is not necessarily uncalled for, ineffective or likely o backfire. Rather it is relying too heavily on what I call mistakes, often to the exclusion of more effective strategies, which is the problem. Democrats will not find winning in November easy regardless of what they spend or what they do. But a more psychologically and politically sophisticated campaign will give them their best chance of winning.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/9/8/2121688/-Snatching-Defeat-From-the-Jaws-of-Victory-or-Not
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
