Election day is less than 30 days out. Mister Mix covered the polling angle this morning, so I’m going to take a quick look at messaging.
I’ll start with some core concepts:
1) Candidate messaging needs to be authentic. Most voters may be (and are) ignorant on issues, but in my experience, they can suss out when candidates are pandering or trying to sell voters a bill of goods (even Trump, in his psychopathic, malignant narcissistic way, is somewhat authentic because his lizard brain has to believe the crap he is slinging or his head will explode).
2) Candidate messaging needs to resonate - emotionally and viscerally - with those in the district where they are running. This gets to my Circle of TrustTM. Candidates can propose all sorts of policies and ideas on issues, but if voters do not feel like they connect on values and on a visceral level with a candidate, they won’t truly process anything else the candidate says, regardless of whether or not they agree with the policy prescriptions and ideas the candidate offers.
3) Candidate messaging needs to be about “home field” issues. Candidates who are highlighting and reinforcing the core issues on which they are running (playing offense on one’s home field in sports terminology) have a better chance of victory than candidates who are responding to their opponents’ issues/accusations (playing prevent defense).
4) Candidate messaging needs to relate to voters concerns within their specific district. This may seem obvious, but it is easy for candidates to succumb to the siren song of consultants and others who want them to talk about issues that don’t truly relate to the place where they are running. Voters vote on what the perceive is in their best interests and on what the perceive directly impacts their lives (that perception is more susceptible to demagoguery the further away the office for which the candidate is running gets from the lives of the voters).
5) Candidate messaging should be tightly focused. This goes back to the “Keep it Simple, Stupid” principle followed by Bill Clinton in his first Presidential campaign in 1992. Candidates should focus on 2-4 core issues and talk about them with relentless repetition in the final stages of the campaign.
______________________________
A few examples of candidates that seem to be doing it right.
Jon Ossoff in Georgia. I’ve written regularly about Ossoff because he may be the Democratic poster child for how to do it right. He has been laser focused from the get-go on my pet message: “It’s the Corruption, Stupid”. Ossoff is authentic and forceful in delivering his message. He’s also been incredibly consistent in connecting the corruption issue to issues and concerns of voters in Georgia that they view directly impacts their lives. As an incumbent, it’s also clear that Ossoff has been responsive to his constituents, delivering on issues they care about in his first term. Funny how being a good elected official who actually cares about his constituents makes his political life as a candidate significantly easier.
Abdul El Sayed in Michigan. El Sayed has been pummeled from his opponents and national dark money using scare tactics and trying to get him off message. AES’ focus has been remarkable. He regularly refuses to engage on the scare mongering and pivots to his core message. He has repeatedly and consistently laid out his core message in simple and relatable terms: “Get money out of politics. Put money in your pocket. Pass Medicare for All.”
James Talarico in Texas. Talarico does have the benefit of running against perhaps the most nakedly corrupt and inept candidate for Senate this cycle, Ken Paxton. Nonetheless, Paxton is currently the State Attorney General and Texas has a recent history of teasing Democrats with success only to pull a “Lucy with the football” moment and consistently elect Republicans statewide. Talarico is taking advantage of his (somewhat unique in Democratic circles) authentic and overt Christian faith to both connect with voters and campaign on his metaphorical “home turf” by contrasting his faith and views with those of his totally corrupt opponent. will he win? We’ll find out soon enough.
Rev. Adam Hamilton in Kansas. Hamilton is somewhat of a mirror version of Talarico, if a bit more unknown to the American public. He is the founding and senior pastor of Church of the Resurrection in Leawood, Kansas, a United Methodist congregation that has grown into the largest United Methodist church in the country. He’s running against Roger Marshall, a corrupt incumbent and OB/GYN doctor who is being upbraided for suing indigent patients and even have some of them jailed for being debtors. Hamilton, like Talarico, is using his authentic faith to compare and contrast against Marshall. It seems to be working as no one thought Kansas would be in play at this stage of the campaign.
______________________________
Political campaigns are not rocket science. However, they are intense, time-limited efforts that require skill, discipline, focus, attention to detail, stamina, a well-thought-out strategy and the ability to seize opportunity when it presents itself while being flexible enough to adapt to changing conditions throughout the campaign.
That sounds like a lot, but it’s really not.
IMHO, staying true to the 5 core concepts listed at the top of this post provides any candidate with the foundation and guiding principles to run a successful campaign. Some will win and some will lose. Some will pull upsets and some won’t be able to overcome a playing field that is stacked against them (deep red states like Idaho, Oklahoma, Wyoming and Missouri, for example). That’s politics. But recognizing the importance of the core principles - especially in the final days of a campaign, gives a candidate the best chance to come out on top.
To paraphrase Mister Mix’s last line in his post this morning, “The future was wide open… and the sky was the limit.”
Tom Petty - Into the Great Wide Open
