Message v. Mechanics

There forever have been and always will be exactly two components to political campaigns, message and mechanics. In simple terms, that's what you say and how you convey it to voters. And let me make clear that by "convey", I don't just mean phrase crafting. I mean the whole pathway from the candidate's mind and heart all the way to the voter's. There has been a lot of discussion at this and other sites about the best ways for Democrats to campaign and win. But we cannot make reasoned judgments about strategy without clearly grasping the fundamentals of campaigns. There are lots of sources of information about both theory and practice, so I'm not trying to present Politics 101 here. I'm going to argue that the components are of equal importance. But I want to make sure we can agree on some basic definitions. I'll start with mechanics.

Once the candidate has decided what he or she wants to say, then mechanics takes over. In simple form, the process begins with a determination of how to phrase the message. But it continues with decisions about form of presentation (in person speech, radio or television speech, billboard, demonstration, parade, pamphlet, flyer, push card, phone bank, web site, direct mail, email, door-to-door canvass, press release, book, etc.) . Many of these devices involve art or stagecraft that can be almost as persuasive as the message itself. Often multiple means are used. But regardless of the form of delivery, the message must be observed by voters (seen, heard, read), it must be understood, and it must be remembered.

Generally speaking, the more distant or passive the communications method is, the less likely it is that the pathway will be completed. Thus, next to an in-person, one-to-one discussion between candidate and voter, the next most effective vehicle is probably the in-person speech, which explains why candidates travel so much and talk so much. Still, attracting voters to hear a candidate's speech, especially in a time when televised speeches are abundant, is difficult. The next most effective device, the door-to-door canvass, overcomes that problem, but frequently places the candidate's message in the hands of someone else, often a volunteer. Other, more modern communications methods allow candidates to reach much larger numbers of voters, but in a much more passive way. Still, even in local city elections, the sheer number of voters candidates need to reach makes the use of electronic communications a necessity. At the same time, the human desire for personal contact makes "grassroots" organizing essential, as well. A voter is actually more likely to be convinced through conversation with a neighbor, friend or coworker than any other means, but only if the voter is first convinced that the neighbor, friend or coworker accurately represents the candidate.

This brings us to message, which should be taken to mean not just what the candidate thinks, but also what he or she decides to say. In other words, there is an editorial process at work. That's true even when the candidate claims to "speak from the heart." I'm not suggesting that such candidates are misrepresenting themselves. But none of us shares with any other person all that we think. It would be impractical, and in politics, it is unnecessary. A campaign can be thought of as an extended job interview with thousands, perhaps millions of employers. So, what those prospective employers need to know is how the candidate would function on the job. But because of pride of ownership in a democracy, voters also want to feel that they somehow "know" a candidate. They want to ask not just, "what do you think?" but also "who are you?" Citizens want to be able to not just pry into a candidate's personal information, but, more importantly, gain a sense that he or she has qualities of leadership, integrity, passion and wisdom. Many also desire that candidates have understanding and compassion for the lives of ordinary citizens. Message encompasses both thought and emotion.

Message must be groomed in some way, because it must take account of the audience, and how much the audience can hear, understand and remember. Since many of the available communications methods will result in incomplete transmission, the message must be repeated, and because those in opposition can be counted upon to attempt to misrepresent and recast the message, it must be repeated many, many, many, many, many times. The main message must be kept limited to a few points, in order to aid its absorption. Supplementing the message with example, especially anecdotal examples that permit the candidate to convey the emotional qualities the voter seeks, is important, and this part of the message can easily vary from one appearance to the next. There is a natural tension between the desire of candidates to share themselves or show how much they know, and the need of campaigns to "stay on message." Thus it is critical that the initial choice of message be thoughtful, and a true reflection of the candidate's desires, because if it isn't, the candidate will easily drift away from it. And if the message is so well-groomed that it doesn't offend anyone, it may also not excite anyone, which is the point David Van Os makes so eloquently in the previous post.

So, what can we conclude about the best ways for Democrats to campaign? First, as Van Os points out and exemplifies, a message delivered with conviction that speaks to the needs and passions of voters is critical. We must remember that the objective is to obtain the votes of 50% + 1, not necessarily 100%. Candidates, not consultants, must be in charge of their campaigns. If the campaign represents the homogenized view of consultants rather than presenting the vision of the candidate, it will appear so, and voters will see the candidate as unauthentic. At the same time, we cannot return to the days of literal stump speeches, when the candidate's stage was a tree stump, audiences of 2-300 represented most of the voters in a town, and voters had few other sources of information about candidates. We cannot confuse the desire for traditional rhetoric with a self-destructive urge to sacrifice fundraising. Modern campaigns cost money. Period. Candidates also cannot afford the luxury of imagining that because they are in charge of their campaigns, they can be their own campaign managers. Just as lawyers who choose to defend themselves at trial have a fool for a client, so it is with candidates who choose to run their own campaigns. Modern campaigns are complex. They require intimacy with thousands or millions of individuals. That means having an effective organization, and it means using all the communications methods available.

Let me conclude with a few words about polling. Polls should never be used to tell candidates what positions to take. Candidates should know what is important to them and why they want to hold public office. That does not mean, as I pointed out above, that they should share every position they hold or emphasize every one. To do so would dilute the message and make it appear, ironically, that they had no convictions. Polling is important for candidates, however, because it provides them information about voters. Certain localities or groups of voters naturally have differing concerns. A candidate speaking to the chamber of commerce would be a fool to make all the same points they would when speaking to, say, the NAACP. Some of these distinctions are fairly obvious, but others are much less so. Polling can be used to determine what kinds of voters may be positively influenced by certain of the candidate's positions or by the wording used to express those positions. And what kinds of voters may give a candidate credit for disagreeing with them. They can also be used to evaluate an opponent's strategy and provide clues as to how to attack their message. And, of course, they can be used to evaluate the status of the campaign, determining where and when to make appearances, do advertising, conduct phone banking or canvassing, etc. Candidates who have no patience for campaign managers who make decisions in that way are simply not going to succeed.

To sum up, the key to running good campaigns is good candidates. Good candidates are, first and foremost, energetic, articulate people with strong beliefs and vision for the position they seek. But they are also people with strong, authentic roots in their community, district or state. And they are people willing and able to conduct a modern campaign, raising money competitively and using it, with the assistance of able operatives, to make their communications optimally effective. This is a lot to ask, but it is not an inherent contradiction. We just have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

DEMOPHOENIX