It's the Strategy, Stupid!
As is made abundantly clear in It's the Incompetence, Stupid, you can have all the technology money can buy and still be a bad campaign. Both the Democrats and Republicans used technology in new and different ways in the last campaign, but - and it pains me to say this - the Republicans just did it better.
In Narrowcasting in Ohio the author discusses how both parties used narrowcasting to persuade and mobilize voters in the crucial swing state of Ohio. Ignoring the authors snarky comments about what ACT might have included in their PDA videos, it gives a balanced overview of the ground organization of each campaign. It doesn't, however, tell you why we lost. Here is my theory:
The Democrats organized their ground game to win in the blue areas - diverse, urban areas.
The Republicans organized their ground game to win in red areas - suburbs, exurbs, rural areas.
There are more electoral votes in red areas than blue.
Pretty simple, eh?
When you live in a city, everyone is a stranger. It's no big deal to learn about candidates from a stranger on the phone or on your doorstep. However, when you live anywhere else, you don't really trust strangers. In the Midwest, we trust other Midwesterners more than people from, say, Oregon. We especially don't trust people from California - they are all just hippie freaks to us.
When you need to persuade a group of Midwesterners to vote one way or another, you don't send Californians or New Yorkers or Alabamans. You send Midwesterners! Preferably Ohioans - from their city - who went to their high school and know their sister.
The Bush team used technology, but they used it connect neighbors with neighbors - not too show fancy videos - and that made all the difference.
3 Comments:
You make an excellent point, and while it may sound simple to you, I believe that Kerry's campaign people tried to think the whole campaign through too much and refused to see the world the way it is. In order to be successful a campaign needs to take the time to consider the type of people they are dealing with and consider what they may or may not be receptive to. You are a mid-Westerner and know what will work. Instead of trying to make people see things from a Democratic point of view from strangers the Kerry campaign should have brought Mid-Westerners in to talk to them. It is a simple concept that I wish the campaign would have utilized. Nice work!
"When you live in a city, everyone is a stranger. It's no big deal to learn about candidates from a stranger on the phone or on your doorstep. However, when you live anywhere else, you don't really trust strangers. In the Midwest, we trust other Midwesterners more than people from, say, Oregon."
That's a fascinating point. Ever since Dean's orange-hat debacle in Iowa, it has seemed pretty obvious that outsiders aren't as effective at persuading voters as neighbors are. However, I think you are right that for urban voters, that isn't as big of a deal.
I've never said more than three words to any of my neighbors here, and I'd probably prefer to be contacted by a hippie freak than someone living next door (since I'd then have to talk to them more). But for someone living in a more close-knit community, the outsiders would probably be likely to provide reason not to vote for their preferred candidate.
Perhaps those running the liberal GOTV operation simply didn't think about this fact, and instead simply assumed that all voters were just like them (it's a mistake that I certainly make on a regular basis). Hopefully it's something they think about next time around...
I agree -- I only trust other Midwesterners;)
You raise an excellent point; people are more likely to listen and become connected to a campaign when it comes recommended by a neighbor or someone who they feel comfortable with, rather than a stranger.
Post a Comment
<< Home