On Puppies, Or, Hillary’s Math

 I am constantly reminding everyone who will listen that the centrist leaning; non-Party affiliated voters who occupy the “gap” decide Presidential elections.

All evidence suggests this will again be true in 2008. To take it further, in many constituencies, gap voters will determine Congressional races as well.

Here’s why:

From a risk/reward perspective, changing the minds of the “hard” voters on either side of the electorate through persuasion is often not worth the challenge.

To illustrate the inherent difficulties in moving voters from either fringe, I humbly offer the “Puppy Theory of Political Persuasion”:

1) There is a percentage of the population who will not object if the President were to eat a live puppy on national television, as long as some explanation for the behavior can be provided (“The puppy was a threat to National Security!”).

2) Alternatively, there is a percentage of the population who would not give Mr. Bush credit if he personally ended the Iraq War and cured AIDS, both on the same day (“He’s still in the pocket of Big Oil!”).

Is Clinton also affected by this calculus?

Can we quantify the population at either fringe who find her objectionable beyond all persuasion, or will support her no matter what?

To put it another way, can we put a number to Hillary’s Puppy Factor?

While I don’t feel capable of providing such answers at this time, I do have ideas that could stimulate the analysis.

First, I think the measurement of “non-objectors” (point 1 above) is easier for Mr. Bush than it will be for Clinton. This is because Mr. Bush has seen the enormous drop in his approval ratings over the past 5 years, which have apparently stabilized since about the fall of 2005.

The principal issue driving these numbers, I think we all agree, is Iraq.

Since the news from Iraq has continued to become worse, but the approval rating is basically stable, I submit that we are fairly close to identifying Mr. Bush’s non-objector Puppy Factor as being somewhere around 35%.

Second, there is an additional Puppy Factor, the “non-creditors” (point 2 above), which I submit is more difficult to measure than the non-objectors, unless the candidate being measured can post an upward trend similar to Mr. Bush’s downward measurement.

Should Clinton, or Obama, or others find themselves moving dramatically upward, that measurement, for that candidate, may reveal itself.

Finally, why does all this matter?

If elections are won in the gap, then the larger the gap population, the more likely a centrist candidate can effectively harvest votes from that group. Conversely, a candidate facing a smaller gap will have to harvest from a smaller universe of available votes, a tougher proposition.

Of course, another option in either case is to attempt to attract prior non-voters.

Historically this tends to yield less efficient results than harvesting known voters, which means knowing the Puppy Factor, for these candidates, can provide an indication of how much additional effort they will need to win an election.

This means if the Puppy Factors for candidates are known, each can adjust their efforts in gap outreach for better results. It will also be easier for analysts to evaluate each candidate’s potential electoral success in 2008 and beyond.

The Puppy Factor ©.
America’s newest political metric.
Look for it in an election coming to you soon.

On Winning, Or, Democrats, Meet Joe Wood

In a recent conversation (“On Shrinking the Tent, Or, Why Third Parties Don’t Elect Presidents These Days”), I posited that the bloc of voters who have drifted away from being reliable supporters of the Democratic and Republican Parties to the middle (I call it the “gap”), are not fertile hunting grounds for a potential alternative party candidate.

History has shown us however, that these voters are often the crucial difference in election after election for established party candidates. To put it in stronger terms, no Democratic Presidential candidate has a chance in winning in 2008 without successfully piloting these waters.

If you are considering running as the Democratic candidate for President in 2008, I humbly offer you the following navigational chart.

I’ve never personally met Joe Wood, but it’s fairly easy to get to know some things about him.

Mr. Wood has a blog on the TPM Café website.
Here’s an entry: http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28223

From taking the time to read what he says, we can learn the following:

Mr. Wood is quite conservative regarding values and morals issues.
Mr. Wood supports an aggressive national security posture.
Mr. Wood is very comfortable with the commingling of Church and State.
Mr. Wood has opinions strongly at odds with the available, demonstrable facts from time to time.
Most important of all, and the source of his feelings above, I believe, is that the central and defining component of Mr. Wood’s belief system is his faith in the Christian God.

In all these areas Mr. Wood and I hold diametrically opposite positions.
(Except one: frankly, I’m completely wrong about things from time to time, as well.)

Despite all the opposites, Mr. Wood and I have plenty in common:

We both strongly support this ongoing American experiment in Democracy.
We both fear, however, that Government no longer works for all its citizens as it should.
We both want to reduce homelessness, and poverty, and crime.
We both want to breathe clean air and drink clean water.
We don’t like flag covered coffins.
We are both concerned about our economic futures, and those of future generations.
We are both willing to listen to and respect reasoned, cogent, civil argument supported by facts.

What did Bill Clinton do that Al Gore and John Kerry couldn’t that allowed him to grab a decent chunk of the gap?

I submit he spoke to the God in the gap.

That he was willing to go to churches and talk about social justice with passion, and in a way that reminds Christians that Jesus was a social justice crusader.

A big, big, big “L” Liberal.

It worked, too. Twice he was able to keep the core Democratic constituency on board, while grabbing enough of the gap to get over the top.

Never got the universal health care passed, and also missed on other big L social justice reforms; but there’s an argument to be made that winning elections and governing are two different forms of political calculus.

However, I digress.

On how to apply the lesson offered above:

If you want the votes of Evangelical Christians, and other social conservatives, aim for the weak points in the Republican platform.

Have the guts to walk into a megachurch, stand there facing Mr. Wood and the other congregants, look them straight in the eye,
and ask this question:

“What Would Jesus Do?”

If Jesus was President, would He be fighting “the terrorists”, or Islam, or whatever we’re calling it today?
If Jesus was President, wouldn’t He be trying to create an Axis of Love?
If Jesus was President, wouldn’t we be fighting homelessness?
If Jesus was President, would 40,000,000 Americans have no health care?
If Jesus was President, would the number of working families stuck in poverty be increasing or decreasing?
If Jesus was President, wouldn’t His Administration respect His Father’s creation, the Earth, in ways it isn’t respected today?

Maybe these aren’t your exact preferred questions, but the concept is clear: show Christians in the gap that this Administration is as far from Christ-like as you can get.

John Kerry might tell you that if you try this, you’ll get Swiftboated.
So what?
That just means what you’re doing is working.

James Carville might tell you that you absolutely must respond to a Swiftboating in the same news cycle.

The problem with that is you allow the opposition to define your “brand”, and you don’t promote your message.

Here’s another possible approach: call ‘em on their desperation, respond to charges, but at the same time…

…The best defense is a good offense.

Never let the gap forget this Administration’s policies (and presumably, any likely R opponent’s) are less reflective of the Christian belief system than yours.

That the Rs are the moneychangers in the temple.

That your platform, while respecting the separation of Church and State, is still more reflective of the Ten Commandments than your opponent’s.

Remind everyone who will listen that Jesus was a Liberal.
God willing, the opposition calls you one.
Embrace the title with gusto.
Then, once again, remind everyone who will listen that Jesus was a Liberal, too.

Here’s the best part:

While Senator Obama and the Reverend Sharpton have plenty of Jesus cred, and have a sort of “home court advantage” here, you don’t have to be Christian or a religious person of any sort at all, for that matter, to use this strategy.

All you need is respect for Mr. Wood’s point of view, the willingness to engage him in a way that’s compatible with his belief system, and some good ideas that reach for the common ground you and I and Mr. Wood share.

(A side note: if your platform concentrates on the issues above, the strategy also works for Buddhists, Hindus, and followers of Islam; as virtually all the members of those communities also like breathing, good health, a place to live, and food on the table. Bonus!)

I’ll make the last thing I say today the first thing I said today:

Democrats, meet Joe Wood.
You’ll be glad you did.

On Tightening the Tent, Or, Why Third Parties Don’t Elect Presidents These Days

For today’s conversation, let’s discuss why, despite the desire for third parties, independent candidates seem to never really get over the top, why a third party will probably never succeed in actually winning elections, and where this might all lead.

Why third parties, or independent candidates at all, for that matter?

To put it simply, both the Democratic and Republican orthodoxies have decided to “shrink the tent”.

By that, I mean both parties have been directing the largest amount of their efforts lately to retaining certain core constituencies, while ignoring the remaining voters who don’t fit the correct “most likely voter” profile.

It’s easy to see the D’s and R’s playing to their “most likely” supporters, and it’s easy to see the results.

Examples are in order..

Here are two: the World Domination Through Any Means Necessary crowd has an inordinate amount of power in the R camp, and D’s are currently engaged in that crazy DLC v. All Other Democrats and Reality conflict we’ve been observing.

More? How about the “sins of omission”.

Both parties have angry constituencies, who feel ignored: Evangelical Christians want social changes imposed by Government they’ve not yet achieved.

Minorities, social justice and worker’s rights advocates also find themselves frustrated.

If you have ever voted for a candidate only because you hated the other one more (virtually every Presidential election?), you understand the sins of omission.

As has been observed frequently, this creates a big pot of potential voters for the candidate who can fill the empty spot in the middle.

So why don’t the candidates win who try to straddle this gap?
Why can’t third parties thrive?

I suspect a major part of the problem is that the gap is not homogeneous.
That is to say, the gap is populated with disaffected D and R citizens.

People who have common ground, but perhaps only believe the extent of that common ground is their disgust with the change in Government and on their own side.

Consider this list of recent independent Presidential candidates (and hopefuls); you’ll see what I mean:

Ross Perot, John Anderson, Steve Forbes, Barry Commoner, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, Joe Lieberman (just kidding on that last one…At least for the moment I’m kidding.).

There’s potential D or R support for each one of these-but not much D and R support for any of ‘em.

Where are you going with all of this, fake consultant?
Gentle Reader, I’m glad you asked.

I’m suggesting this may be an example of the duality of Zen.

That, ironically, in order for the gap to be fully enabled as a political force, it will have to be diffused, and it’s power diminished, by the formation of not just a third, but also a fourth party.

These “parties”, especially at first, might need to be less tightly bound than the current D and R structures, as they might reasonably be expected to have a fairly fluid connection to potential new candidates/allies/funders “coming in from the cold”, as it were.

Where might this all lead?

Here’s some guesses:

If a fluid 3rd and 4th “party” were to evolve, party conventions, or the immediate run-up period just before might become a sort of “superprimary”, with a second-place finisher and what organization they can grab sliding to the appropriate alternative group. Obviously, this scenario also requires credible alternative candidates willing to bolt.

History, and the list above, suggests they’ll be found.

Any Presidents elected from these parties would have, at best, “challenged” relationships with D’s and R’s in Congress. This suggests a “Great Communicator/Fireside Chat” sort of an approach might be needed to attempt to influence Members through the voters in their districts.

If such “New Coke” parties were successful, would the “Classic Coke” D and R management be willing to change to recover these voting blocs?

My guess, especially on the R side, is no. More likely you would see either a sort of eternal scorched-earth campaign, to the detriment of most, or all, of the participants; or a repeat of the Reform Party situation.

The fly in the ointment here is the ability of alternative candidates to get on the ballot in 50 states. Any alternative parties, therefore, would have to depend on getting the “threshold” level of votes required in each state that guarantee a presence on the next ballot.

The only Party I’ve seen that succeeds in meeting the threshold consistently is Libertarian, and I don’t view them as the sort of “fluid” party we’re discussing here. (For fans of “The Right Stuff” I’d suggest that being on the ballot even precludes the “No bucks, no Buck Rogers” conversation.)

For reasons discussed above, the role of the Internet will continue to be explored by candidates and parties.

The currently unknown question of whether a political community can be sustained between Presidential elections would have to be addressed.
Would such a community run Congressional candidates?

A final two questions:

Keeping all this in mind; how might Mc Cain, Edwards, Obama, HRC, and players currently unknown work this dynamic?

The concept of branding, in a political context, has until now been used only by the existing Parties.

Might there be a place for Party-independent branding of political actors?