My colleague Ed Kilgore is pretty consistent and persistent in his conviction that the best way to turn out Democratic voters in a mid-term election is mechanically, through field work, rather than through “exciting the base.” In his telling, it wouldn’t really benefit Michelle Nunn if she ran as a proud progressive. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem like Ed thinks that it would hurt her much, either. My take on his argument is that message matters very little, and organizing is king.
This certainly harmonizes with my general preference for “organizing” rather than things like “framing.” But I think there is debate to be had about base excitement tactics. On some level, the more you excite the base the more money you can raise and the more volunteers you will have for your ground game. So, the question becomes where the correct line is where you’ve excited your base as much as you can without allowing the benefits to be overwhelmed by the loss of persuadable voters in the middle.
If you’re running as a Republican in Texas, there is seemingly no line. You can go maximally crazy and you’ll probably never lose more than you gain. As a Democrat running in Georgia, however, Michelle Nunn needs some voters who never vote in midterm elections to come out to vote. And it would be preferable if some of them didn’t have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the polls by her aggressive field organizers. It would be nice if some of them heard something fresh and exciting and made the decision to go to the polls all on their own.
So, partly, it’s important to get your message out to politically disengaged voters. But, partly, your message has to motivate people. Someone making minimum wage at the Piggly Wiggly might be interested in a federally-mandated raise. A college student saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in debt might be interested in some loan forgiveness or better terms of repayment. Someone who feels like they’re getting ripped off by their cable company might be interested in more competition and some consumer rights. There are ways to get people’s attention. Many of those ways involve pushing progressive ideas. Very few of them involve “coming together to solve problems.”
I’m no expert on how to run campaigns in Georgia. But I know that there are some progressive, populist ideas that Nunn could put in her toolbox that would not alienate the middle but would excite people who don’t normally pay attention. Some of those people are part of the party’s presidential-year base, and some are just people who don’t normally bother to vote.
From your mouth to God’s ear, Boo.
My colleague Ed Kilgore is pretty consistent and persistent in his conviction that the best way to turn out Democratic voters in a mid-term election is mechanically, through field work, rather than through “exciting the base.”
What proof does he have for this? Does Kilgore really think Obama won, over Clinton in ’08, just because of a superior field operation? What does he say about the people, like me, who would have moved to Iowa to work for Feingold had he run for President in ’08?
It, along with demonizing, or of late simply highlighting, the craziness of the GOP opponent, is the only way neo-liberal/neo-con Democrats have a chance because their message is totally unappealing to half or more of the electorate. Nunn’s problem is that she’s an authentic neo-liberal/neo-con, and probably not a good enough actor to pull off inauthentic progressive messaging.
I’m assuming you are a consistent voter, so no one really has any interest in you except as a volunteer and donor. If Michelle Nunn said the right things, you might even send her a check. But, that’s unlikely to happen because she probably won’t say things that excite you.
I think the differences between Ed’s perspective and mine are twofold. He’s more concerned with making sure people focus on the ground game and not spend all their energy thinking that better rhetoric is a substitute for that.
I am more a proponent of advancing progressive goals so I am more focused on finding ways for progressivism to sneak into these red state contests, and I also think some excitement helps build the ground game. I don’t think Ed doubts that, but he’s mainly concerned about turnout, and sees a lot of dumb opinion about how to boost it.
but I’d say the ground game the best way to communicate the ideas;
Eric Cantor is getting his ass kicked
He’s toast. The race is called. Tea Party has another head. The monster continues to eat its own. When will the GOP see the handwriting on the wall?
They do see the writing on the wall: “Shit I need to be more crazy…”
Running on only a single issue, immigration. Being outspent 40-1. And the guy wins. I cannot imagine how far off the radar screen immigration will now be. And this will bring out the worst of the worst from the anti-immigrant crowd. Things are going to be absolutely insane on the GOP side. It is going to make everything up to this point look like Sunday School.
What is unemployment in that district. Xenophobia always increases with unemployment. The best bet Latinos and Asians have to defeat xenophobia is to support progressive policies for a vibrant economy. Nobody fears the immigrant when jobs are plentiful.
who is the democratic
sacrificial lambcandidate facingCantorBrat?John “Jack” Trammell. Made it in yesterday.
does he have a chance? over at the Orange Place they were saying Cantor as a write in could give JT a chance, but otherwise?
No idea about this candidate. All I know is that in 2012 the Democrats ran the strongest candidate I can think and he got pummeled by Cantor (though a lot less than anyone who’s taken a swing at Cantor in the GE).
It’d be nice if we had a candidate before yesterday…
In addition to Wayne Powell being the best nominee the Dems have had in the district since…I can’t remember…Steve Israel effectively undercut him and provided NO support.
So we have trouble recruiting because fucking Steve Israel will throw the nominee under the bus.
wow! that’s terrible
He made it because the candidate, who ever that was, didn’t turn in their petitions on time. So the area Democrats had to hold a party convention to pick a candidate. Trammel and Brat both teach at the same college, go figure.
Believe it’s Jack Trammel, a professor at Randolph-Macon college.
Has anyone checked out Brat’s website? According to Twitter he campaigned against the NSA, and a few awful bills. And just today BezosPost had a “Dewey beats Truman” type article saying that Cantor was facing a pesky, but ultimately losing, Tea Party candidate.
BezosPost, very nice
BezosPost might have forgotten to count the DEM crossover votes. In 1948 Gallup didn’t bother to poll African-Americans and assumed their voting patterns wouldn’t change. Didn’t consider that Truman’s “integrate now” to the military could be a factor.
Sure, he campaigned against some awful bills. The immigration bill was awful, for example. However, Brat didn’t just campaign against that bill. He campaigned against immigration reform, period, and hung it around Cantor’s neck.
Immigration reform emerges as key issue in primary contest facing Eric Cantor
Do not think for a minute this dude is going to be a Justin Amash who might be constructive on some issues and a bomb thrower on others. This district — of which my parents live — is Confederate to its core, and extremely nativist.
His big issue was immigration.
Yes, but Zaid Jilani(who used to work at CAP) tweeted out a link to a Brat speech where he went on a rant against Wall Street because no one was ever jailed. What I’m saying is that Brat is dangerous. He’s got the righty populism thing down, despite being an Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman fanatic, who is also super religious.
Don’t forget to check Digby, who listens/follows Ingraham:
Limbaugh was credited with winning the 1994 election. Meet the new Rush Limbaugh.
Score one for messaging over funding (Cantor spent 40X more) and name recognition.
I have yet to see any real analysis backed by data on strategies that actually increase turnout during mid-terms. I doubt ideology has much to do it – but frankly I don’t know what does.
It is rather amazing that there is no study that looks at turnout variances with an eye to finding out what works.
Chaos erupts at Cantor election night headquarters after his departure
“Get a job”, that’s funny! That’s what it’s all about.
What happens if that someone is perfectly content to vote for someone who will eliminate that federally-mandated minimum wage altogether provided that someone really loves guns, and really hates people who pray, love, sound, look wrong?