After giving some consideration to why Democrats may have done so badly in last November's elections, there are several faulty Democratic assumptions that have come to mind. Some of these were covered in a previous diary by me (here's the link for anyone who might be interested: http://www.dailykos.com/...).
Those faulty assumptions included things like the assumption that it's okay for Democrats to lose in 2014 because they are virtually guaranteed to win in 2016. Another assumption is that the favorable demographic trends for Democrats will guarantee that they will become a majority party and all we have to do is wait for that to occur. Another is the entire categorization system used by political pundits to label districts “lean Democratic” based only on the results of a few cherry-picked recent presidential elections.
Two more faulty assumptions have occurred to me since posting that diary. One has to do with the entire premise of so-called “base elections” and whether there even is such a thing. The other has to do with how Democrats approached trying to turn out their base, with phone calls and canvassing.
Let me address these two matters, one at a time, below:
a) So-called “Base Elections.”
The entire premise of the “base election” mindset is that there are some election cycles when turning out your base will be key to winning the elections.
It seems quite possible to me that there is no such thing as a “base election,” despite what the political pundits say. No political party will win a national election by merely turning out their base. It's important to turn out your base, yes, but rarely, if ever, can you win an election by focusing on that.
There is one group of people that determine the outcome of all national elections: Independents.
Republicans won in 2014, in my opinion, because they were able to turn out their base AND win over independents with effective messaging that, essentially, kept their large lunatic fringe tied up in the attic until after election day.
In my own Congressional district (NY-24), an unknown Republican newcomer to politics won in a landslide upset against our Democratic incumbent, in a district that was labeled as “lean Democratic” (erroneously labeled as such, in my opinion), mostly by focusing like a laser on appealing to independents, positioning them self as a moderate, while offering just enough red meat to get their lunatic fringe to vote for them (or at least to vote against the Democrat).
Republicans did a brilliant job in 2014 with a top-to-bottom messaging effort that played on Democratic weaknesses while positioning themselves as sensible, moderate alternatives.
In other words, they focused like a laser on winning independents.
Most progressives and most conservatives don't like hearing people like me telling them that the formula for success to winning elections is to appeal to independent voters, but it's a fact. Very few strong progressives or strong conservatives are adept enough at winning office without also being able to successfully frame themselves in moderate messages that will appeal to independents. Most successful far-right and far-left candidates have an ability to throw out enough red meat to their base while also being able to ensure independents that, not only are they not dangerous, but that they, in fact, are reasonable enough to be able to be part of the solution to partisan bickering.
Which means, essentially, that there is no such thing as a “base election” whereby turning out the base will be key to winning, at least not on the national level (there may be some local exceptions, where Republicans or Democrats outnumber the other party in such overwhelming numbers that simply turning out the base will win elections, but when it comes to Congressional or statewide elections, it seems to me that the entire premise of a “base election” model for any election year may be completely bogus). It seems to me that neither Democrats or Republicans will win any national election by merely focusing on turning out their base, no matter whether it's a presidential election year or not.
b) Th Ineffectiveness of Phone Banks and Canvassing.
As far as contacting voters, the assumption that phone calls and door-to-door contact with voters to those constituents would overcome the problem was a major faulty assumption.
The Bannock Street project was a $60 million investment by Democrats, predicated on the notion that simply contacting voters, by phone or in person through canvassing, would help turn out their base. That massive investment proved to have been completely ineffective. And one of the reasons, in my opinion, may lie in the entire premise of the effort.
Contacting voters during any election cycle is important, yes. However, merely contacting voters with phone calls or in-person visits in what is known as “canvassing,” which was the entire premise of the Bannock Street project, is not necessarily the solution as far as getting the base to get out and vote.
The project, in hindsight, may have been of some help, but does not appear to have done much to help Democrats in 2014. One could argue that if it weren't for the project Democrats might have done even worse. That's possible, although it seems hard for me to imagine the Democrats doing much worse than they did in 2014. Yes, they might have blown their one successful opportunity to take over the Republican-held Pennsylvania governor's mansion and they might have lost the Kentucky legislature and done far worse in places like New York and California. However, besides those very sparse victories, it's still hard to see how much worse Democrats could have done nationally, in terms of the 2014 elections.
Phoning people is essential for any election to try to help turn out voters. However, it is a very cosmetic and superficial way of trying to reach people. It is probably marginally effective only when it comes to those folks who are more engaged in the political system and somewhat inclined to vote to begin with. For those who aren't, who feel left out by what's going on in the political process, it seems highly unlikely to me that a phone call or even a door-to-door visit by someone pitching the same old superficial messages (which usually are very generic messages about supporting issues that help the middle class, without much additional detail) will actually be much of a motivator for most people.
As someone who did phone calls and canvassed as part of this year's efforts, in hindsight, it seems that the messaging was extremely weak. In hindsight, using a list of standard talking points doesn't seem like a very potent weapon.
This goes to the heart of what many people have been saying since November, that Democrats did an atrociously horrible job, across-the-board, in terms of messaging, from top to bottom.
If you're going to invest $60 million in efforts to try to reach people one-on-one, either by phone or at home in person, it seems to me that the number one priority is to determine what the most important messages would be, especially in context with all other advertising and public relations messages. Without that, everything else is a waste.
The purpose of my pointing out faulty Democratic assumptions is not to be a Democratic Party “troll,” but to try to be a Democratic Party realist.
Someone might ask, well, it's all well and good to point out these flaws, but what's your proposed solution? My answer to that: it beats me what the solution is, except to offer this possibility: It is quite possible that Democrats are the same as Republicans when it comes to losing elections, simply incapable of objectively looking at the reasons why. There's a tendency (and a huge financial and psychological investment) by both parties in being unwilling to look at election results in a clear-eyed way.
The first step, it seems to me, is to realize some of the faulty logic and assumptions that may be part of the problem.
As far as seeking a solution to what caused the problem with Democrats having lost so badly in November, perhaps it might be a better idea to focus more on the problem first, before focusing on the solution, in order to better understand the problem itself.
Maybe Democrats need to survey Democrats who didn't vote and independents who did and find out why. That might be a good first step. Getting information directly from the mouths of those who determined the outcome of this year's elections seems like the best source for a solution; the rest would be nothing but pure speculation. Although, deep down in my heart, it seems quite possible to me that neither the Democratic nor Republican parties really want to, or are even capable of, taking an objective look at themselves. Neither one has demonstrated such an ability in recent years.