How the Minnesota DFL Lost Their Narrative

    One can already see the Minnesota Republican political narrative for 2016 and it is not pretty for the Democrats.  Simply put the narrative is that the DFL is out of touch with middle class Minnesota, they are the party of gridlock, and GOP will defend the middle class and stop the bickering.  How did all this happen?
    The strength of the DFL narrative in 2010 and even though most of the 2013-14 session was its defense of the middle and working class.  They had a great narrative: an increased minimum wage, tax increases on the wealthy and cuts for the middle class, more money for K-12, and the Women’s Economic Security Act.  This is a terrific “We are on your side message.”  But somewhere along the way to the 2014 elections the Minnesota DFL lost their message and the battle for images and symbols.  Spending on a new state senate office building did not help and the messaging on taxes and spending fell flat, costing the DFL the House in 2014.
     Now the DFL are in trouble.  Dayton’s push for commissioners’ pay raises was simply politically dumb.  After years where most Americans if not Minnesotans have not seen pay increases, arguing for commissioners’ raises when they already make two to three times the median family income in Minnesota was not smart.  Nor were defenses of it by some DFL commentators that these individuals deserved raises or else government would not be able to recruit or hold talented administrators.  It sounded greedy...like private sector business CEOs who whine they do not make enough.
    But then it got worse.  The Dayton-Bakk fight did not look good.  It painted a party as dysfunctional, undermining another narrative that the DFL had for the last two years–they delivered on their promises.  And then the deal to address the raises was brokered by Kurt Daubt–the GOP Speaker of the House.  His intervention sets up a narrative that the DFL cannot govern alone and that what is needed is unified Republican control of the legislature.  Moreover the deal he did broker did not take the pay raises off the table–it merely postponed them until later this year–even closer to the 2016 elections.
    And then this past week the State Auditor sharply criticized the mismanagement of MNSure.  Yes it has insured many more Minnesotans yet its managed was flawed and it needs to be fixed.
    Finally, while no one doubts we need to spend billions more on infrastructure and that the Republican proposal to spend the non-existent surplus on roads and bridges is an insufficient smoke and mirrors idea, the DFL have not messaged their proposed tax increases well.
    So think about 2016 and the issues Republicans will use.
    The Senate office building will be nearly done, standing as a monument to government excess; pay raises for commissioners while the middle class struggle; tax increases for infrastructure; health care mismanagement; and possibly a feuding DFL that cannot work together.  Together they paint a picture of Democrats as out of touch with middle class Minnesotans and as a party that potentially cannot get anything done (aided by Republicans who now have an incentive to drive the state into a budget impasse or shut down again and then blame it on the DFL).  This is a 2016 Minnesota replay of what the national Republicans did in 2014 when the ran against Obama and the Senate Democrats.
    What is perplexing is how the DFL lost control of its narrative again.  In the larger scheme of things they are probably do way more to help middle class Minnesota than the Republicans are, but they are simply terrible at messaging and one wonders if they can improve their ability to communicate and understand how these issues play beyond their metro base.

Soccer Moms and Swing State Politics: The Missing Narratives

On the eve of the final presidential debate the race has come down to three predictable points–developing a compelling narrative to move soccer moms in the swing states to vote for Romney or Obama.  None of this should come as a surprise.

           

Politics is about the power of telling a compelling narrative about yourself, why you are running for office, what you hope to accomplish, and what you think the world looks like. It is your vision of yourself and the world that you seek to sell to others.

Everyone loves a good story or narrative. We all love a good movie, television show, joke, and perhaps a book if it has a good plot and story.

Politics is no different. To be successful in politics, candidates need a narrative.  For most candidates, simply explaining why they are running for office is not enough. A good political narrative has several components: (1) it explains why the candidate is running for us; (2) it is a narrative describing who the candidate is; (3) it must describe the candidate(s vision of the world; and (4) it must describe what the candidate wants to accomplish if elected(it is their platform.

Narratives are important. Back in 1988, George Herbert Walker Bush cast off the importance of narratives by stating that he did not need the (vision thing( to get reelected. He may not have had an explicit vision, but he certainly had a narrative. He had a narrative about winning the Cold War, creating a kinder and gentler society; one guided by a thousand points of light. Bush successfully convinced many Americans about a way to think about the world and him; they believed that by voting for him, they would get a particular type of government that would secure a specific view of the world without new taxes. Unfortunately for him, he did raise taxes. His story turned out to be a lie for some, and he lost in 1992 to Bill Clinton.

In 2008 Obama ran with a powerful narrative–change.  Change is a compelling  narrative, especially when you are the opposition. Gerald Pomper, one of my former political science professors at Rutgers University, once pointed out that Obama’s use of change as a slogan was similar to those of Eisenhower and Kennedy. Change seems to be the narrative to use when wanting to out incumbents or when voters are weary of the status quo.

      

The generational narrative of 2008 about change, then, captured age, technology, being cool, and being connected to Americans. Obama and the Democrats had a great narrative, but then 2010 happened. In a year where the economy still stunk, how did Obama defend his stimulus bill, financial reform, and health care changes? The situation was clear: they had no good narrative. I could not find a single compelling narrative for the Democrats in 2010 to defend what they had done.

But then a new narrative emerged–“It could have been worse” (had we not acted). This narrative grew out of comments from Obama and Tim Geithner, who talked about all the things they had done, such as bailing out the banks, GM, and so on. Had these steps not been taken, said Obama and Geithner, things would have been worse. I do not know about you, but for me “It could have been worse” hardly inspires voters or wins over swing voters. Still, that was their narrative, and Democrats lost big when Republicans ran on the narrative change in 2010.   

The basic problem Obama has had in this campaign is finding a narrative, vision, or argument for four more years. Romney is correctly criticizing Obama for his lack of vision for the future.  Obama‘s “forward” does not offer it, and throughout the debates and even his speech at the DNC one is still looking to hear the argument of Obama’s for why he deserves four more years and what he hopes to do.  Simply saying “I am not Romney” may not be enough.  What the 2012 campaign is offering is one candidate lacking a narrative versus another whose narrative of change is vacuous, disingenuous, or simply flawed.  However, the power of Romney’s narrative is identical to Reagan’s “Are you better off now” and Obama seems unable to articulate a Reaganesque “Morning in America” response. 

The missing narrative gets to the second factor dominating the closing days of the presidential election–appealing to soccer moms.  I have consistently argued for years that soccer moms are the single most influential swing voter in American politics.  Women are the majority of the electorate now and vote in greater percentages than men.  Women are more likely to be Democrats than men. Many former GOP women have left that party because of the issues the Republicans push now.  These women are not yet willing to call themselves Democrats and thus they are swing voters who  vote on issues different from men. Women were a critical constituency to Obama’s 2008 win but they stayed home in 2010.  How they vote will be critical in 2012.

While Democrats have enjoyed a gender gap for years, this year Obama appeared to be opening up a huge lead among women.  But then it began to shrink.  This is the main reason for the tightening in the polls since the first debate.  Soccer moms are shifting–not in large numbers, but enough to make a difference.  This is why Democrats are seizing on Romney’s “Binders of women” slip.  It is an effort to portray Romney as out of touch with women.  The reality is that the “binders” comment was probably simply a miss-statement that means nothing.   Yet Romney seemed like he did not get it when it comes to gender discrimination issues.  That was the real gaffe.  He failed to understand women still face workplace discrimination in the form of sexual harassment, being paid 76% that of men, glass ceilings, and other problems of being single parents or double standards.  Yet the problem for Obama is that he too has failed to describe an agenda appealing to women, and his failure to craft a narrative about the economy, student loans, education, and a host of other matters means that some soccer moms are unsure about who to vote for.

Finally, the problem of narratives and appealing to soccer moms comes down yet again to the swing states.  As it had been for the last several election cycles, the entire race comes down to about ten states that are swing and which will determine who gets to 270 electoral votes.  Thus, the race is simple–finding a narrative to move a handful of swing soccer moms in a handful of swing states.

Neither candidate seems overly appealing to the soccer mom. Neither offers a narrative or message that addresses their concerns or needs.  Despite the fact that women are the majority of the electorate American politics seems fixed in a masculine voice telling a story that is either absent or unappealing.

Four More Years? Obama’s Challenges in Quest of a Second Term

    Presidential re-elections are referendums. They are referendums on the economy, on the state of the country, on the performance of the president.  Voters they look back four years and ask themselves how they judge the performance of the incumbent president.  The same will be true this year with Obama.  But unlike four years ago, President Obama faces daunting challenges running for re-election, including facing this referendum on his first term and convincing Americans he deserves four more years.

    Four years ago Obama had several advantages in his bid for the White House that no longer exist, or at least are muted compared to 2008.  What are they?

Generational Politics
Perhaps the most important advantage Obama had was the generational factor.  By that, Obama wad the choice of a new generation as the baby boomers, Gen Xers, and especially the Millennials come out to support him.  Obama had the cool factor.  He was young and chic, hip, and a rock star.  Voting studies demonstrated that he had overwhelming support and turnout among younger voters, losing only to the aging Silent Generation. But today Obama is no longer cool.  He is older, greyer, and not as chic as he once was. While in 08 he embodied optimism, Romney was correct at the RNC that now for many he is about disappointment and disillusionment.  He had such promise and opportunity so many say in the coffee shops, but he failed to live up to the expectations.

    Obama failed to live up to these expectations because in part about his narrative.  The 2008 campaign was about hope and change, but what change was about was never clear.  It was an empty  bottle which people filled with their own hops.  Obama also created expectations that he would change politics and Washington and solve the pressing problems of the day.  That did not happen.  It did not for many reasons.  Yes the Republicans sabotaged compromise, but the Democrats failed to cooperate too.  Yes the scope of the problems were greater than he and others estimated, especially with the economy, but Obama too had a generational chance to push for bold ideas and instead he squandered away opportunity.  He just never thought bold.  Thus, change did not occur.

    But generational politics works in a different way–demographics.  The Silent angry generation is dying off.  More states are reliably Democratic than Republican and the racial demographics in the swing states favor Obama. 

The Missing Narrative
    Now four years later the narrative of change is impossible to use.  Republicans used it successfully in 2010 and again are using it again–arguing for change in the White House while mocking the hopey changey narrative.  Obama’s problem remains again the issue of narrative.  In 2010 the narrative was “It could have been worse.”  No excitement here.   Obama’s biggest challenge in Charlotte this week will be to try to offer the new narrative.

Incumbency
    Obama is the incumbent.  That also forestalls running on the banner of change. Asking voters whether they are better off now than four years ago was a powerful challenge by Ronald Reagan in 1980 that led to the defeat of Jimmy Carter.  Romney posed this question at the RNC again, and if swing voters make this the question that decides their choice, Obama loses.  As pointed out scores of times, no sitting president besides FDR and Reagan have won re-election with unemployment above 7%.  It should be over for Obama, except for the fact that the Republicans have no plan, no candidate who is likeable, or a demographic that works to their advantage.  There are just not enough aging angry white guys out there to win an election.  Yet given the facts that data suggest the top 1% along with Wall Street  are doing better now than four years ago, why they are not supporting him seems perplexing.

    Incumbency brings advantages but it also means you are held responsible for the status quo.  Obama is responsible rightly or wrongly and he needs to convince people that your record is worthy of four more years.  Obama does have an impressive record–the auto bailout, health care reform, Dodd-Frank, “Don’t ask, don’t tell is gone.  But Obama has not told his story well and he needs to do a better job than he has.

Money
    Obama has a significant political cash advantage four years ago.  Business broke from the Republicans and supported him.  Now Romney and the GOP will have more cash and Wall Street  has turned against him.  Obama runs as an incumbent with a cash disadvantage.

Technology and Grassroots
    Obama lacks the big pockets he had last time but he still has the powerful community organizer grass roots structure that he had four years ago.  Additionally, four years ago Obama became the first Twitter and Facebook president, using the new and social media in unique ways that helped him reach out to a new generation.  Others have caught up here, and Twitter and Facebook are no longer cutting edge.  Yet Obama still has an advantage here.

Personality
    Four years ago voters like Obama.  They still do and this is his biggest advantage over Romney who no one really likes or is passionate over.  When push comes to shove likeability is a major factor for candidates.  Romney runs on competence but plumbers seldom win presidential if any elections

The political-economic world of 2012 is very different from the one of 2008 when Obama won.  Obama faces many challenges to a second term.  What he and the Democrats need to do this week in Charlotte is more than simply say the Republicans are bad.  They need to make the case for Obama, convincing voters that despite what appears to be the case four years later, they are better off and should award him with a second term.  A term that as of yet we have to what he wants to accomplish.

Politainment: My new book explaining the 2012 elections

New book describes essence of winning politics in 2012 elections

Politainment: The Ten Rules of Contemporary Politics: A Citizens' Guide to Understanding Campaigns and Elections by David Schultz describes how much politics and the media has changed

SAINT PAUL, Minn. Hamline University professor David Schultz, noted expert on elections and politics, announces the publication of his latest book, Politainment: The Ten Rules of Contemporary Politics: A citizens' guide to understanding campaigns and elections (ISBN 0615594204).

Politainment is the word of the day according to Schultz, and it is the essence of contemporary politics. It is a world where politics and entertainment merge into one, where politicians seek to be celebrities, and celebrities run for political office. Politainment is the politics of Comedy Central, late-night talk shows and the 24 hours a day news cycles using entertainment venues and techniques to capture the limited attention of voters and viewers. Schultz's new book examines the key concepts of this new world of politainment. He describes 10 simple rules for successful political campaigns  such as politics is like selling beer, define or be defined or that it is about passion to explain what it takes to win in politics and why politicians and the media need one another.

Written in an easy to understand format, Politainment: The Ten Rules of Contemporary Politics: A citizens' guide to understanding campaigns and elections, is for political junkies, journalists and those exploring American politics for the first time. It makes sense out of the 2012 elections and tells readers what they need to know about politics.

Politainment: The Ten Rules of Contemporary Politics: A Citizens' Guide to Understanding Campaigns and Elections, is available for sale online at Amazon.com.

About the Author:David Schultz is a professor of public administration and government ethics at Hamline University School of Business. He has taught classes on American government and election law for more than 25 years. Schultz is the author and editor of 25 books and 90 articles on American politics and law and is a frequently quoted political analyst in the local, national and international media.  Schultz draws on these experiences, plus those working in government and working on political campaigns, to the writing of Politainment.

For more information contact me at dschultz@hamline.edu or by phone: (651) 523-2858. Also check out my website: www.davidschultz.efoliomn.com