Lessons for 2020 from 2012

[_honorentheos]

Interesting article proposing Democrats should be looking at what Romney did to fail in 2012 more than why Clinton lost in 2016 -

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... ons-115340

Rather than obsess over 2016, Democrats should focus on 2012—the last year a challenger took on an incumbent. There are more parallels than you’d think: Barack Obama was a president hugely unpopular with the opposing party, but the economy on the upswing; the Republicans had a big field and took a while to coalesce around a consensus choice. In the end, that choice was Mitt Romney—and his campaign misread and misplayed the election in ways that the Democrats desperately need to pay attention to now.

Long before he became a hero to Never Trumpers and the #Resistance for having the courage to fulfill his constitutional oath, Mitt Romney was the last politician to take on an incumbent president. A year before the election, Nate Silver famously asked on the cover of the New York Times Magazine “Is Obama Toast?” I was working for the Obama re-election campaign at the time, and in our internal polling, Obama was losing to a generic Republican in most of the battleground states. We hoped the Republican voters would nominate anyone other than Romney, because Romney might be unbeatable. We were wrong, because while Obama benefited from an economy that strengthened over the course of the campaign season and a messy, overly long primary, Romney also made a series of strategic miscalculations. And the Democratic nominee cannot afford to repeat those mistakes in 2020.

...

The Democratic nominee needs to recognize that a lot of the voters we need see Trump very differently than most of us that populate liberal Twitter, watch MSNBC and listen to Pod Save America. According to polling and focus groups, despite a Cheesecake Factory menu’s worth of scandal, they still see Trump as someone who represents change. Despite multiple bankruptcies and investigations into his finances, they believe that Trump’s business experience makes him qualified to deal with the economy. And despite a plethora of plutocratic policies, they see Trump as a populist. Voters are not naïve. Outside of the MAGA base, most have a pretty nuanced view of Trump. These impressions can and must be changed—in some cases with only a modicum of new information. But only if Democrats run against the person these voters see, not the person they know Trump to be.

[_honorentheos]

Of all the points in the article with which I agree, and I agree with most of them, the first is the one that really resonated with me most:

First, do not make this election solely about Donald Trump. The idea that the challenger wants a campaign to be a referendum on the incumbent rather than a choice between two candidates is a staple of political conventional wisdom. It is also a mistake. From the very beginning, Romney’s primary goal was to make the race all about Obama. His campaign ran virtually no ads that introduced Romney to voters. He rolled out very few policies. All of his messaging firepower was focused on Obama. This was a fundamental misunderstanding of the contours of a modern presidential campaign and a fatal strategic error. Romney left a vacuum of information that the Obama campaign, and other Democratic groups, were more than happy to fill with information about Romney’s far-right positions, his pro-corporate policies and his long career of carrion capitalism. Remember the Obama campaign ad with Mitt Romney singing “America the Beautiful” that featured his record of shipping jobs overseas and using off-shore tax havens?

By the time the Romney campaign got around to telling the story of Romney’s life, how he saved the Olympic committee and other good works, it was far too late. The damage was done. Romney famously made a number of historic gaffes, but Obama’s campaign-trail performance was far from gaffe-free. The reason Romney suffered more from saying “Corporations are people” and “I like firing people” than Obama did for saying “You didn’t build that” is because voters knew Obama. They didn’t know Romney, and Obama’s campaign was happy to tell people who he was.

[_EAllusion]

I think this article, with Politico being the perfect venue for it, is an accurate representation of the views of the Democratic consultant class. I think it's by and large wrong. My preferred poli sci and commentators sources are besides themselves with frustration over this, which I appreciate in the abstract, but I'm more fascinated by how one gets to believe this kind of folk wisdom.

[_honorentheos]

You think that a Democrat running abstractly as not Trump is a guarantee to win? Hmm. Seems like just yesterday you were discussing the odds of incumbent Trump winning given the macros. So, since you disagree with it, what do you disagree with, specifically? I mean to be both representative of the consultant class AND have nailed down the folk wisdom angle...huh.

[_EAllusion]

You think that a Democrat running abstractly as not Trump is a guarantee to win?

No, I do not. I don't think a Democrat is guaranteed to win no matter what strategy you plug into that sentence. What do you think guarantees a Democratic win?

I do, however, think running against Trump is the most likely path to victory given that Presidential elections are largely referendums on the incumbent and the public's discomfort with Trump is the main reason why he is under water in approvals despite having strong reelection fundamentals at his back. I also think that messages about Trump's unfitness for office have room to depress his numbers even lower, because, despite what you might have raad, voters are indeed fairly naïve and they are responsive to that message when you hit them with it.

Will it be enough to win? Idk. Hillary Clinton's spending on anti-Trump advertising was effective in PA, but she didn't win PA. Election strategy only matters so much.

Hmm. Seems like just yesterday you were discussing the odds of incumbent Trump winning given the macros. So, since you disagree with it, what do you disagree with, specifically? I mean to be both representative of the consultant class AND have nailed down the folk wisdom angle...huh.

Do you think the Democratic consultant class are operating off of mainstream political science? If so, lol. They're to political science what old time baseball coaches are to sports analytics.

[_Markk]

How about having a plan?

What will the Democratic candidate print out on their Hat?

I think one of the most telling signs of the problem is this... “ expound on who are are pulling for and why, and expound on their plan...?”

I am waiting for anyone to go on the record here and get excited.

I can ‘t believe doing a “Uncle Rico” and going back in a time warp will help you out much...you are basically saying, “man, if we only had Obama, we could win!”

Trump in no way is Romney, not even close...Romney ran a weak race it was his fault...Trump is coming out swinging and is going to get all the free attention he needs to build on his base.

I said this the other day, and it is apparent, that he has the left so confused and panicked, they having nothing to fire up a base, and no plan other than getting Trump out, which those beyond the hard core base are over with, long again.

But, go back in time and study Obama and Romney, instead of getting a candidate that excites the independents and minority voters, because at this point it seems that Trump's is stealing a lot of those once guaranteed votes. Get a candidate that excites you.

[_honorentheos]

I...yeah.

Welp. It looks like that's about the sum of it from both sides.

[_moksha]

They said Reagan was the Teflon President in that nothing stuck to him. I am thinking of Trump as the Selective-Odor President in that his followers cannot smell his poop.

[_honorentheos]

I do, however, think running against Trump is the most likely path to victory given that Presidential elections are largely referendums on the incumbent and the public's discomfort with Trump is the main reason why he is under water in approvals despite having strong reelection fundamentals at his back. I also think that messages about Trump's unfitness for office have room to depress his numbers even lower, because, despite what you might have raad, voters are indeed fairly naïve and they are responsive to that message when you hit them with it.

These are discussed in the article. They are even discussed briefly in the snippet or three I shared. The author, former Obama staffer Dan Pfeiffer, makes the case that the issue isn't running against Trump, but drinking the Kool-Aid that comes out of left-wing sources of hat Trump is so bad and so many people find him repulsive that all one has to do is run against Trump. You'll note that even in your reply you acknowledge the exact same thing the author says is necessary - engaging people's views of Trump where they are to inform their naïvety.

Do you think the Democratic consultant class are operating off of mainstream political science? If so, lol. They're to political science what old time baseball coaches are to sports analytics.

What I think is this was almost as bad an engagement in discussion as we got from Markk, who entirely missed the point of the article by so much he appears to not be able to pass a simple quiz about the subject, object, and theme of the article. And now moksha is here to making poop jokes about Trump.

When did discussion completely collapse in the forum?

[_EAllusion]

These are discussed in the article. They are even discussed briefly in the snippet or three I shared. The author, former Obama staffer Dan Pfeiffer, makes the case that the issue isn't running against Trump, but drinking the Kool-Aid that comes out of left-wing sources of hat Trump is so bad and so many people find him repulsive that all one has to do is run against Trump. You'll note that even in your reply you acknowledge the exact same thing the author says is necessary - engaging people's views of Trump where they are to inform their naïvety.

As long as you don't strawman this into a position absolutely no one will argue, then it is the case that the main thing you need to do is recognize the public already really dislikes Trump, but it is important to continually remind them why so they don't lose the message in an election. The public by and large doesn't see Trump as a change agent with business expertise who is an advocate of the people. They see him as a dishonest, embarrassing man-baby. Does everyone see him that way? No, but a critical mass do. Some of them will vote for him anyway, but it's a good strategy to get that number as low as possible by reminding people of their discomfort with him.

Will it work? Maybe, maybe not. The reason approximately 2 million people decided to run against Trump this cycle is because of a widespread recognition among Democrats that Trump is a terrible candidate and they saw it as a golden shot to be President. Trump's got some advantages, though, not the least of which is he'll be cheating. We'll see how it goes.

What I think is this was almost as bad an engagement in discussion as we got from Markk,

[/quote]I responded to you misguidedly attempting to point out a self-contradiction when I described the consultant class as trading in political folk wisdom.