The GOP is a threat to your freedom, health, wealth, and safety. If they gain control of the federal government they plan on passing a national abo
The GOP is a threat to your freedom, health, wealth, and safety. If they gain control of the federal government they plan on passing a national abortion ban, gutting Medicare, destroying Obamacare, raising taxes on working families, and stealing a lifetime of YOUR Social Security money.
---------------------------------------
Partisanship creates a convenient shortcut that low-interest and low-information voters can rely on to make their vote decisions, and it colors our entire perception of the political world.
There are two things that should never be discussed in polite company, religion and politics. Well, presuming you, gentle reader, to be a reasonably polite person…sorry.
Rachel Bitecofer is a PhD in political science and international affairs. In 2017 she wrote The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election, a book analyzing the 2016 US elections. She made her reputation by being one of the few political analysts who correctly predicted Biden’s 2020 victory with impressive specificity, and the size of the Blue Wave in 2018. She has come to some conclusions about why Democrats so frequently lose to Republican candidates whose interests are in opposition to those of their constituents. In order for Dems to make inroads with voters, they will have to take some pages from the GOP campaign playbook. Hit ‘Em Where It Hurts lays out what the other side is doing, and extracts from that lessons to be learned to improve outcomes.
[image] Rachel Bitecofer - image from The Telegraph - credit Christopher Newport University
What is it that they do? Well, demagoguing issues and playing the politics of division, lying relentlessly and repeating their lies ad nauseum, of course. Not news. But Bitercofer digs into the specifics of how the GOP goes about this. She also offers analysis of voting groups, with an eye to how one engages different populations.
Ordinary people hate losing, or losing out on things we like or think we might like--with more intensity than we like gaining those things. A simpler way to put it is losing makes us feel twice as bad as winning makes us feel good.
Instead of the usual Democratic campaign of demonstrating to voters why a candidate is better able, better prepared, and maybe a better person, Bitecofer urges Dems to engage in impactful criticism of their opponents. Or, why the other candidates will be bad for you, applying the blame of truth not just to the down-ballot candidates, but to the party as a whole. Voters may or may not recall a candidate’s name, but they’re likely to remember how they feel about Rs and Ds. Where I live, for example, it is not just GOP senatorial candidate Dave McCormick who is a terrible person with terrible plans, it is the entire Republican Party. Frankly, it is not a tough case to make. Not to the exclusion, of course, of promoting better ideas and humans, but with maybe a shifting of campaign resources from all positive to more attack-mode.
When, at the 2016 Democratic convention, Michelle Obama first said, "When they go low, we go high," it was a rousing moment which spoke to people being and becoming their best selves. Good values matter. But from a tactical perspective it is self-defeating. In basketball, these days, it is called undercutting (back when I was a terrible player, it was called low-bridging), when a defender hits an airborne shooter, causing a dangerous crash to the floor. Going high when the opposition is spending millions going low is a surefire way to ensure a broken back or a losing campaign.
There are two things that low information, and low interest voters (and they are legion) rely on in deciding who to vote for. Most important is party affiliation and second is their familiarity with the names of candidates. So, as a rule, a Republican will vote for the Republican on the ticket, regardless of the candidate’s merits. We can, for example, fully expect that, in addition to his core supporters, Donald Trump will receive tens of millions of votes from people who simply do not care about his 34 felony convictions, his attempt to stage a coup, his stealing of classified documents, his relentless lying and his considerable hostility to democracy. Nope. If he’s got an “R” next to his name, he’s our guy. To be fair, there are some Dem voters would vote for a cheese sandwich if it was on the ballot with a “D” next to its name, but I expect fewer than the “R” non-MAGA voters or leaners. Core voters for both parties will support their team.
But there is a middle ground, comprised of voters who lean and the truly unaffiliated, a small number. This is where the battle is engaged. Campaign ads must portray not only the candidate of the opposing party, but the party he/she represents, in a bad, but honest light. And do it relentlessly. She calls this Negative Partisanship. Instead of proclaiming only the virtues of our candidate, we must also portray the darkness of our opposition, something that has worked quite well for Republicans, but which has met with resistance from many Democratic candidates. Also, this should not be limited to the candidate in a given election, but applied across the board to the Republican Party. It is the party that will see to it that our rights and freedoms are pared back, while the rich get richer, not just the candidate. This has the benefit of being a worthy broad brush, as all Republican pols do whatever their Dear Leader wants.
There are barriers to Democrats progressing in political warfare tactics, primarily money. The right has a well-funded, (by billionaire oligarch sorts like the Koch brothers and mahor corporations like the big oil ) well-oiled machine for spreading their message. Think tanks provide academic cover for nonsensical or dark policies. Check out the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 for maybe the best example of this, certainly the most alarming, and probably the most dangerous. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a central clearinghouse for the creation of rightist legislation. It is no accident that the same text is used in state bills across the nation. Dems do not have a comparable entity. Neither do we have Fox News, the primary purveyor of political misinformation, even if it does cost them the odd billion dollars or so in court settlements. It is an uneven playing field.
In the absence of that sort of infrastructure, Dems must rely on improving messaging, making it more pointed. When it comes to public policy, the majority of voters side with Democratic positions, on sensible gun control, abortion rights, the inviolability of Social Security and Medicare, and more recently on the need for Obamacare. It is important, Bitecofer says, to point out to voters just what they are in danger of losing, highlighting the differences between Dems and Republicans. What are they trying to take from you? Pretty easy re SS and Medicare, which have huge national constituencies. Republicans are eager to gut both. People are more likely to respond to a campaign that points to Republicans trying to take away your medical choices, your literal freedoms, than they are to a detailed message about how a religious belief should not be made into public policy. How about the safety of your children? Are they likelier to come home from school in one piece if we allow military grade weapons to be bought by just about anyone? Are you ok with schools having to run active-shooter drills? It is not necessary to get into the corruption of the NRA or point out that that organization has become a funnel for Russian money to right-wing politicians. Simplify, show contrasts, and point out potential personal losses.
In most political books the analysis of why we are where we are is all fine and dandy, but what does it mean for addressing it, given that the dark side has, effectively, limitless funding to spread their lies, the mainstream media has shown itself to be highly resistant to calling out liars, and most voters simply do not give a shit? Are we doomed to relentless right-wing propaganda and spin through their pervasive media capture, aided of course by Putin and other foreign allies of American fascists? What can be done to get people to recognize the existential threat posed to our democracy? Turns out there are some things we can do. This is what makes Hit ’Em Where It Hurts different from most political analyses, and a must read for anyone engaged in political campaigns.
This is not unplowed earth in which Bitecofer toils. There have been plenty of books written about political tactics. Rick Wilson’s wonderful 2020 book, Running Against the Devil, offers advice on how to go about campaigning against Trump. One book that stands out the most for me is Saul Alinsky’s look at how to organize a movement for change, a community organizer guide, based on his decades of experience. In the 1970s many progressive and liberal activists studied his now classic 1971 political strategy book, Rules for Radicals. The benefit of these, and surely many other books is that they offer specifics re how to move forward. While Bitecofer’s book differs in focus from Alinsky’s the intention of both works is to show people how to seek and gain power over their own lives through democratic means. Bitecofer’s Hit ‘Em Where it Hurts is a Rules for Radicals for the 21st century. We have already seen some application of her approach in current and recent campaigns, whether inspired by her or someone else. The tactics she espouses have found their way into the real world and we will see in 2024 if candidates are willing to accept her counsel and do what it takes to win. I truly hope that most of them do.
think of all elections, big and small, as battles in a much larger and far more consequential electoral war, whose victors will determine the future of this nation.
Senior Fellow, Elections, The Niskanen Center Rachel Bitecofer is assistant director of the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University, where she teaches classes on political behavior, elections, & political analysis and conducts survey research and elections analysis. Her research has been featured in many media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, NPR, and she is a contracted commentator on CBC Radio. Her book, The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election (Palgrave McMillan) is available via Amazon. Her innovative election forecasting model predicted the 2018 midterms five months before Election Day, far ahead of other forecasting methods. Her forecasting work argues that American elections have become increasingly nationalized and highly predictable; with partisanship serving as an identity-based, dominant vote determinant for all but a small portion of Americans.
Loading...
