This one is a 6/10 (and given the information as to it’s source in the update, maybe it should get a 8/10 on a curve…)

Thanks for the follow-up. I can’t speak to the inside workings of Democrat consultants. I’ve only worked on the other side. I can speak to the results of those Democrat consultants and offer a critique, from the other side, of what I think are some of the mistakes that Dem consultants tend to make over and over.

If we were chatting at a Starbucks I could run you through the war stories and lore about campaigns and how we (the other side) got them wrong the first time but self-corrected the next time and won. Sometimes it takes three times out to get a win. I can’t speak about how Dem consultants look at lost races but I can speak about how I learned to look at them. In one of my first House races, in a lean-Republican district with a conservative-moderate Dem representing it, we lost a race we should have won. Why? When we went out into the field the next day, we learned that we hadn’t effectively nuanced the campaign. We ran a campaign focused on base turnout which should have been effective in a lean-Republican district. What went wrong? We ran to the right and in the process lost enough moderates and indies for the incumbent to eke out a win. We didn’t make that mistake the second time. We ran to the right and the middle and against the left (him). ;-) That district hasn’t elected a Democrat to this day.

Why candidates lose depends on the characteristics of the district. If you have a Republican candidate running in a lean-Republican district and he loses it’s because you didn’t have the right candidate (wrong stance on the issues for the district, wrong personality, big gaffe in the closing days, candidate not aggressive enough, etc.), ineffective political operation (ineffective get-out-the-vote, poor media, not enough money, uncoordinated communications, poor strategy, lack of proper nuance, etc.), a combination of the two or the incumbent is the right person for the job.

Some people on the Dem side might not agree with what I have to say about running campaigns. But I believe that the other side has a far more effective play book for House and Senate campaigns. The Burner ad is one of the same old, weak ads that the Dem consultants turn out year after year. It doesn’t work for a challenger. And it can do harm. If you run ads introducing your candidate as this nice young woman and then follow up with some really tough attack ads later, it creates a discordant image in the minds of voters. More effectively, introduce the candidate as a strong, smart wife and mother who is passionate about bringing needed change to Washington and is confident about what changes need to be made.

I agree that accountability is the linchpin for Challengers this year. How it plays out in each district across the United States will be somewhat different depending on the particular characteristics of the district. For example, the nuance and the issues focus will vary from district to district. Pick 3-5 issues and explain how these needs are not being met and how Dems can meet them. This can be tied into why we need to resolve the mess in Iraq.

In a lean-Republican district with a large concentration of military and military retirees, veterans benefits and health care can be one of the three to five issues. Healthcare is a universal issue.

Polling data shows that a majority of the American people have lost confidence in this President. In a lean-Republican or swing district, one way to approach the issue of Iraq and accountability is to engage the voter by looking to the past and using it to show how the lack of leadership led to the Iraq mess and why a change in Washington is needed. For example, contrast Lincoln’s approach to the Civil War with Johnson’s approach to Vietnam. Lincoln brought diverse opinions (former Democrats, Whigs) into his cabinet. By enlarging his circle of advice he was able to make better and more informed decisions on how to conduct the Civil War. There were times when the prospects for victory were bleak but his decisions based on these diverse opinions, even in these bleak periods, led to victory. Contrast that with Lyndon Johnson. He did not enlarge his circle of advisers but instead shrank the number of people from whom he received advice. We know what happened in Vietnam. George W. Bush is more Lyndon Johnson than he is Abraham Lincoln. Johnson couldn’t admit his mistakes and therefore he could not correct course. George W. Bush and his Cabinet have yet to admit the mistakes they’ve made. How can they change course when all the advice they get from the Republican-Stamp Congress is just that … a rubber-stamp for the same old, failed policies. We know change is needed. The Dem candidate can say, “I will be the voice of the change that is needed in Washington. My opponent is a nice man/woman but unfortunately, he/she is just another one of those rubber-stamps in the Rubber-Stamp Congress. He/She can’t and he/she won’t bring the change we know is needed now.”

I happen to believe that Karl Rove made a strategic mistake in not having Bush dump Rumsfeld and replace him with a high profile Dem. Then the Republicans could have run on a campaign where Bush and the Republicans admitted mistakes, have learned from them are making the needed changes. The current Rove strategy for the November elections is predicated on a passive Dem response to the Iraq quagmire and the War on Terror.

In Lean-Republican and Swing Districts, if I were a candidate I’d say something along the lines of … Iraq is in the midst of a Civil War and our troops should not be the policeman in an internal power struggle. I would also talk about how using our military as policeman in a civil war changes the mission of the military from one of fighting to defend our freedoms to keeping the peace among rival political groups in a foreign land. We must wind down in Iraq. The danger of staying too long is not just the additional lives that will be lost and the additional billions that will be wasted, but that we will seriously degrade the fighting effectiveness of our military. (A good example of this exact problem is the IDF in Lebanon.) Being bogged down in Iraq degrades our ability to fight the war on terror. When talking about Iraq, it’s important to use the words of Sen. Hagel to back up your points. This approach works with conservatives (they abhor foreign adventurism and are aghast at using the military as the world’s policeman), Republican-leaning Indies and Libertarians who normally vote Republican.

Another tie-in to Iraq and domestic and foreign policy are all the things not being done because of being bogged down in Iraq.

I believe that the establishment Dems are risk adverse. There are some pitfalls that one has to avoid when talking about Iraq. A candidate has to be very careful not to allow their opponent to miscontrue anything they say about Iraq. They can’t allow themselves to be seen as advocating or saying anything that could be claimed to be, in effect, undercutting the troops. Our troops performed bravely and admirably in Iraq. They won the war. The political leadership in Washington failed them and us. They lost the reconstruction and they lost the peace. Our troops should not be asked to be policemen between rival factions in a foreign country. This is not their duty. Also, one should never say anything that would imply that any of our troops died in Iraq in vain. The American electorate, in general, will not accept this.

The advice of picking a fight is effective for challengers if it causes the opponent to engage you on your issue. However, not any old issue will do. It has to be an issue that will differentiate you from your opponent and that the electorate cares about. If it’s not an issue that will move votes then it’s not politically effective to pick a fight on that issue. A good example of an effective issue is the Stem Cell debate in Missouri. It helps Claire McCaskill and hurts Talent. McCaskill can peel off some votes from Talent on the issue.

Politics is both art and science. On the other side, Reagan’s team brought the art while the old movement conservatives brought the science. They were very successfully wedded in the Reagan Second-Term campaign. Check out the Morning in America commercials (political ads).

Glenn says the criticism about the folly of leaving out the “Democrat” label in this district is uninformed, echoing some other comments on this thread.

And one other point … it seems that the blogosphere opinion is that Dems don’t look at races after-the-fact to understand why their candidate lost. Republicans have been doing this starting with Nixon. ;-) I’ve never worked on a Challenger campaign that we didn’t try to understand why the previous candidate lost and why the incumbent won. ;-)

If my sources are wrong, then I can concede this. What I hear is that on the occasion when any post mortem is acually done, the questions in play are framed in such a way as to vindicate the prevailing strategy more often than not. This may not be intentional, but it has the effect of insulating the prevailing players from accountability or learning.

For example, public and private polls have long shown that the majority of public is way, way ahead of either party on Iraq. I’ve seen well done private polls that show that, in 2006 swing districts in particular, the most energizing, galvanizing message is one supporting strong accountability and borad based direction change for the country (domestic and foriegn policy), discussed bluntly and in terms of American values. And yet, the Democratic party under Chuck and Rahm’s people is positively allergic to this. It’s hard to explain this in terms other than myopic naivete or groupthink, most charitably interpreted.

Thoughts?

How ’bout we just show footage of the dead in New Orleans and the dead from Iraq with the tag line that says “Vote for those who can’t anymore. Honor our dead by voting against the party that continues to let all this happen. Vote Democrat.”

Bravo!

Any candidate that is running as a Challenger has to inoculate themselves against the weak spots in their candidacy at the kick-off and as the issues in the campaign emerge. A candidate who has never held elective office before has to define themselves early, before the opposition can. This is done through defining the issues you want to run your campaign on and hence the battleground you want to fight the race out on and by letting voters understand why you’re the one they need in Washington fighting for them. A Challenger, in general and in particular for those candidates who have not held elective office before, can never ever let themselves be put on defense or they’ll never recover. A Challenger that has not held elective office before will have two hurdles to climb in their campaign … (1) electability and (2) are they tough enough. They both play into each other. While showing that one is tough enough to get the job done, one is also leaping over the hurdle of electability. In the process, one is also defining oneself.

Aggressive Challengers win. Even with an electorate in an “anti-politician” mood, Darcy will have to be aggressive in taking the race to the incumbent. That doesn’t mean she needs nasty, mean ads. Quite the opposite, it means she needs hard-hitting ads that highlight what’s wrong with the status quo and why she’s the one who can change it. Having a message of change isn’t enough to get one to the finish line. Unfortunately, I’ve learned this the hard way. ;-) The electorate may want change but to get the last 3-5% that puts you over the top requires that people believe that you are the one who can bring the change they want. Nice, warm fuzzy ads that you think your Republican grandmother will like won’t do this. Trust me. ;-) And focus groups give you the politically correct version of what people think they should say. That’s part of the problem with Washington consultants. They don’t understand this either, I guess. Reading the polling data is like reading tea leaves. There are more effective methods to get the intelligence you need to run an effective campaign tailored to your district.

So, I guess the short answer is that the hybrid of offensive/defensive ads really will be played out throughout the campaign. However, it’s critical at the kick-off. The trick is to anticipate on which issues the incumbent wants to play the election out while moving the playing ground to your issues. If you can manage to move the playing ground while weakening your opponent at the same time, then you can move an election 3-5% on limited resources.

Another point, a Challenger can have all the money in the world but if they can’t make the sell, it won’t matter. In other words, if they can’t convinve that last 3-5% of the electorate that they’re the one who can bring the change they want, then all that money was for not. That’s why I agree with Jane and you that the Burner camp need to understand this now. In a month it might be too late to change course. Unless the other campaign is totally incompetent. ;-)

And one other point … it seems that the blogosphere opinion is that Dems don’t look at races after-the-fact to understand why their candidate lost. Republicans have been doing this starting with Nixon. ;-) I’ve never worked on a Challenger campaign that we didn’t try to understand why the previous candidate lost and why the incumbent won. ;-)

Dear […] and every other armchair critic:

Thanks, Christy, I needed that.

Pach, this is a tremendous post, and idea for mobilizing the toobz to help with the campaign this fall. Regarding Mr. Courage’s ad, I’ve only watched it once, and then read some of the comments. I like the choice of issue, assuming of course that he will come back with several more later, but agree that the presentation could be punchier.

I liked Peterr’s idea of changing the order in which the elements of the ad are laid out, so that Courage’s own experiences and those of his father lead into the 18,000 promises (great theme, that) segment. This introductory part would also be a good time to show Mr. Courage talking on camera briefly, then transitioning into some soldier/veteran imagery, with some plain words describing how there’s always a promise implied in the relationship of citizen-soldier to the government. I bet this can be done in around 20-25 seconds; think Bonasera at the beginning, briefer and less chiaroscuro, and having images that describe the veterans’ plight shift into the main focus so that at the end of that time we’re looking at them and not Mr. Courage.

Then the screen with the words “18,000 promises,” followed by a brief blackout, and the criticism of the Republican Congress for taking millions away from veterans’ health programs while voting billions for Halliburton. There must be some good visuals of wounded veterans on the one hand and slaphappy Congrescritters on the other to go with that.