No Magic In The Massie Victory, It Was Politics As Usual

[The following is an essay on the Fourth District Congressional Race.  It is longer than most commentary on this site and as such is truncated]

With a Congress laboring under a pathetic approval rating in single digits, the narrative about our president containing allegations that he is intentionally trying to collapse our economy, people out of work, frightened about the future and many feeling helpless making a connection between the frustrations of today and equally frustrated revolutionary Americans is obviously the kind of intoxicating rhetoric that politicians love.

To make an emotional connection with voters these days smart candidates make frequent references to “our Founders”.  By invoking images of angry colonists throwing tea in the harbor and rising up against tyranny they give focus and legitimacy to the current mob mentality.    

By seeking to deputize voters so to speak, as militiamen in a modern day army connected in spirit with an 18^th century band of rebellious liberty loving patriots the invocation of this nostalgic fantasy gives permission to the people to act in concert as an angry citizenry.  And because the candidates who jump forward and lay claim to this kind of purity empower people, they find it very easy to turn voters into loyal followers.

But this tactic has a more covert purpose than reminding people that they still hold the power in their hands. What these candidates hope to do for themselves by infusing the populace with a sense of sovereignty is to convince people that the politician is operating with a purity of purpose. 

To divert attention away from their own real agenda they will often say things about their candidacy like “It’s all about principles, not about politics.”  But is that true, I wondered? 

So I entered the race for Congress determined to get an up close and personal view of what was really going on in this movement, to have a chance to offer a voice in the debate, to confront those making such claims of patriotic purity with their own words, to test their theories and expose their tactics.  And in the end, to study the outcome from a unique perspective.

What I discovered may upset those who bought into the empowerment rhetoric.  What I discovered is that in in reality, despite all the soaring rhetoric about principles and our Founders, it was really ALL about politics, all along.

I spent all day Wednesday studying results in the Fourth District race and talking to people from the TEA party, county chairs, ordinary citizens, campaign volunteers and members of the press.  I gathered information about how the various campaigns were run and what seemed to make the difference.  What I discovered will likely disappoint you.  Why?  Because just like learning how a magic trick is performed, once you know how it was done, you might feel pretty stupid having fallen for it.

First of all let’s examine the race from that thing which most people think is the important part, the candidate’s stance on the issues.  I have reviewed and studied the websites, video record and press accounts of where the candidates stood during the campaign.  Yes there were some slight differences, and I will mention those later because they tend to be the least important.  But among the most important, here is what I found.

All seven candidates were fully in support of the Second Amendment.  All seven said they were firmly pro-life.  All seven stood firmly for lowering taxes, cutting federal spending, eliminating government regulations and downsizing the federal bureaucracy.   All seven were almost identical in their stand regarding the Department of Education, the EPA, and cutting foreign aid.  All seven favored eliminating the IRS and replacing our current tax system with a “fairer flatter” tax, if not directly supporting the fair tax.  All seven favored entitlement reform, welfare reform, and said they would protect social security for current retirees.  All seven were opposed to provisions of the Patriot Act, and the encroachments by the Federal government under the NDAA and other laws which whittled away at civil liberties.  All seven stood firmly in defense of the Constitution.  All seven were directly opposed to Obamacare.

None felt that Congress was doing its job, all expressed a belief that Congress needed to be more responsive to the people and all complained that President Obama was a disaster and needed to go.

All seven expressed their dedication to the 10^th Amendment and were opposed to amnesty for illegals, called for the borders to be secured and favored a workable guest worker program.

There were only slight variances regarding other matters but in those instances even those with stronger views expressed an understanding that significant progress would be unlikely with the current Congress.

So, considering that all of the candidates shared virtually the same views on the important issues, what became the big areas of difference as reflected in the vote?

The top three vote getters were all incumbent elected officials so being an “outsider” to the system lacked complete purity, although the second and third place finishers had more experience in government than the winner.  All three laid claim to having made progress in cutting taxes or voting against tax increases, but of course the other two disagreed and pointed to instances where the others were subject to criticism over one or two decisions they had made.

But avoiding the taint of being a career politician by running as an outsider to politics couldn’t have been all that important considering that the bottom three finishers never held elective office.  So I wondered, what things were indeed present which reveal the secret to the illusion?  Here’s where your disappointment might set in.

“Politics as usual” is a phrase which is intended to invoke a negative response.  But what does it mean in the real world?

I have been trained and have taught others how to win elections for many years.  There is a time tested formula to “politics” if one wants to win elections.  Following that formula therefore would be playing “politics as usual.”  Here is the play book.

A successful campaign consists of four parts: name ID, likeability, issue identification and voter turnout.  Each must be pursued in that order and each component executed fully.  But, what most people probably never see in the execution of this magic is the one hand you are not supposed to be looking at, and that hand is the one holding the money.

Name ID can be accomplished in any number of ways.  One of the most common is signage.  Here’s how that works.  You can probably identify the Pepsi Cola symbol from a pretty good distance.  Why?  Because you have seen it so many times.  Obama knew this very well when he designed his “O” with a swooshing flag symbol inside.  It’s called “branding” in product marketing and the term “branding” means burning the image in your brain, like burning a brand on a steer.  It is a very traditional campaign component, it is politics as usual.  Now think about it, which candidate seemed to have the most signs?

Second is “Likeability”. This requires that you have a story to tell about yourself that helps you connect with people.  You also have to have a pleasant appearance.  As in most marketing, youth, vitality, good looks, and a big smile sell.  Just ask yourself, how many old fat spokes-models do you see hawking the kind of stuff you end up wanting to buy? 

Crafting a message that makes people like you is very important.  It must be short, easily repeatable and paint a positive image in people’s minds.  We all know the words to some really bad songs, but the ones we end up liking are the ones we hear the most.  Getting “air time” for music is the key to selling records.  Getting an easy to repeat story that you hear over and over helps with the likeability of a candidate in much the same way.  Now just think.  Which candidate’s story can you still repeat?  Once again, no magic here, it’s politics as usual.

The third component of every successful campaign is issue identification.  You must represent the right side of the issues.  And here is where I find many first time candidates making a mistake.  You can’t rush out onto the campaign trail ranting about issues first;.  You must first have people know who you are (name ID), then they have to like you before they will listen to you preach.  Now think about it, as outlined above all seven of the candidates had virtually the same stand on the issues.  Nothing new here, all of them connected with the voters on issues. Politics as usual.

Now comes the last part.  People know you, they like you and you stand for the things they do.  Now you have to get those people to go to the polls on Election Day and vote for you.  It’s called “Get Out The Vote” or “GOTV”. Which candidate in which locations had the best effort to do this?

Running ads on TV and on radio drives a sleepy electorate to the polls.  That, along with signs and all the rest costs money.  So how did the candidates stack up in the money category?  Here again is where knowing the trick causes the magic to let you down.  The ones with the most money get the most votes, politics as usual.

Thomas Massie was the beneficiary of over $1million between what his campaign raised and what a couple of SuperPACS spent on his behalf.  He got nearly 45% of the vote.

Alecia Webb-Edgington came in second and had about $300,000 spent on her race.  Her numbers were a bit higher than Gary Moore who spent nearly the same amount as Alecia, but the combination of endorsements from outgoing Congressman Geoff Davis and former Senator Jim Bunning gave her a bit of an edge that increased the value of her dollars particularly in Kenton County where her ground game in the GOTV category was superior to the others.  All in all, politics as usual.

Walter Schumm spent about $175,000 and came in fourth.  He, like Thomas Massie, was not from Northern Kentucky, was a virtual unknown but was able to use money to get him more votes than the bottom three who did not raise or spend much if anything at all.  The votes lined up in exact proportion to the amount of money each of the candidates spent.  Like it or not, that’s politics as usual.

In the final analysis, even though voters who supported the winner might feel like they were participants in a movement which was a break from “politics as usual” in reality they were not.  It was a combination of the standard techniques of political campaigns which I’ve taught for decades which won the race, all of them executed well because there was plenty of money to see that it got done.

Sure, you can believe in the fantasy all you want.  You can enjoy the euphoria of having supported a winner, or scratch your head and wonder why your candidate didn’t win, but there really is no secret to it at all.  It is a science.

With enough money and following the same path taken by every other successful candidate before, anybody can win.  You see, after all, its’ not about principles over politics, it’s really all about politics.  And if you feel a bit tricked, that’s okay, that’s politics as usual too.

Read more at Blue Grass Bulletin