Welcome back, Saturday Campaign D.I.Y.ers! For those who tune in, welcome to the Nuts & Bolts of a Democratic campaign. Each week we discuss issues that help drive successful campaigns. If you’ve missed prior diaries, please visit our group or follow Nuts & Bolts Guide. This series has been focused on how to build and develop campaigns and successful activism efforts.
As we gear up for the 2018 cycle, there are a lot of theories on how and why voters vote, what compels them, what gets them to the polls, and what strategies are effective. This week, we’re talking about how to lead with your values, and how those values, sometimes more than the party brand, define you and open you up to success or failure.
In 2014, and again, it appears, in 2018, candidates like Greg Orman, above, tried a third way: running as an independent. The argument voiced by some is that there is a large base of voters dissatisfied with the parties that hope to tap into a third way. Orman, a strong pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-LGBT rights candidate tried to bridge the gap by also being in favor of privatization of government services. He had hoped that this socially liberal, fiscally conservative policy could define a new way for independents. Republicans and even some Democratic members, however, viewed him as probably the most socially liberal candidate to ever run for the U.S. Senate in Kansas, making him the defacto left-wing, Democratic option, assured that he would go to the senate to appoint pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights judges. However, some who voted for a Democratic candidate running for governor couldn’t make that transition and vote for Orman because they were defined by being Democratic members, and his rejection of the label said that he, well, wasn’t.
While Orman’s race in 2014 and races like McMullin’s potential run in 2018 give us some insight into marketing vs. the marketplace desires, it also puts a great backdrop to our discussion this week: voters vote for a unique combination of party, candidates, and values. This week, we’re going to talk about why you lead with your values.
Defined by Party
Before you begin your campaign, realize that there are some votes that are “baked in.” These voters vote a straight party line, no matter who is on the ballot. Political scientists will tell you that this number is higher among Republicans, but there are also large blocks of Democratic voters who define themselves by their party label and go into the booth and vote straight ticket.
These voters reflect your “baked-in” number. The moment you put yourself on the ballot as an R or a D, no matter what your name is, if you get through the primary, no matter your issues, you get those votes.
In some districts, the baked-in number is high enough that it is almost impossible to overcome. In a study done by 538, we see partisanship divides begin, really, at about age 18. These divides sometimes create direct party involvement, but often reflect an identification of values, which we’ll get to later.
As you calculate your race, people who work with data can use tools to effectively identify solid voters. While these voters are loyal to the party brand and will not vote for a non-Republican or non-Democratic candidate, their thoughts about the candidate can determine how likely they are to turn out.
Party definition is often determined by platform. Independent candidates can try to run in two different ways: form their own political party, or run as just independent. Candidates who run as, say, Libertarian, Green or Constitution Party have a set platform of values. Independents can avoid that declaration of values. Platforms can unify people who vote based on the platform alone — whether it is Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian, or any other flavor.
From that starting point, we turn to going beyond base retention, and grow through the values and issues we present.
Leading with values.
Many younger voters say that they desire a “third party” or a “different option”; in the end, though, they aren’t saying they want something mushy in the middle of both parties, what they often desire is something far more partisan on both sides.
Progressive Democratic members swayed by Jill Stein may have desired a far more progressive stance. Some Republicans, dissatisfied with Trump, voted Libertarian or Constitution Party, and the Tea Party movement certainly reflected a desire to pull their party further to the right, not toward a mushy middle.
As a voting block, unaffiliated or independent voters are not a homogenous group with issues that unify them. That’s why they are unaffiliated. Instead, they are drawn to candidates as a vehicle to address their issues.
So, let’s take a look at why issue management matters.
While voters have locked in their own thoughts of what defines their ideal candidate, candidates may start with a party brand (or not), but they are defined by voters based on the values and issues they promote.
So, in training courses, I often give this example:
Two candidates running for an office, and I’m not going to provide you party labels.
Candidate A says that they are pro-choice, pro-LGBT, strong climate change advocate.
Candidate B is anti-choice, anti-LGBT, anti-environment.
Can you identify who you would define as a Democratic candidate and a Republican one? The answer, for most people in the audience, is: “yes.” Even if both candidates chose to run without party labels, or in a non-partisan office, frequent voters, like those who read a site such as Daily Kos, tend to neatly sort them out based on the values propositions they put forward.
When candidates run, voters who are not core party-line voters define them based on their own litmus tests; despite statements that people don’t like them, approach any voter, independent, unaffiliated, Republican or Democratic, and you’ll find at least one issue that is a deal breaker for them.
Multiple election cycles inform us that we can reject the idea a candidate could succeed on a platform of: “I have no opinion about abortion, gun control, climate change, race relations, or LGBTQIA rights, etc." Voters will simply not accept that proposition. They will also not accept a proposition that places them in the middle: “I believe in abortion rights on Monday-Wednesday-Friday, but strong restrictions on the weekends and Tuesday-Thursday.” Voters, even unaffiliated, independent ones, tend to have deep-seated ideas about the issues they do care about, and showing respect for their issues is the way to motivate them to get to the polls.
Davis Hammet, speaking at an ActLocal event, summed this up clearly:
“Young voters can say ‘boy, the Democratic party SUCKS! and you say, ‘sure. How do you feel about lowering college debt, legalization, higher minimum wage, and rights for LGBT plus climate change?’ 'sure, I like those things.’ 'well, Candidate A, he’s the one who thinks that and Candidate B opposes all of those things.’”
For voters who are not in the core constituency of either party, they are more likely to be persuaded by alignment of values: the candidate is simply a vehicle to express their values, regardless of the party.
Voters can see through a phony.
Both party-affiliated and unaffiliated voters have a long history of believing they can spot a phony. If something doesn’t resonate with them as real, or if they think your candidate doesn’t actually mean what they say, it hurts. In most cases, if they think the candidate just says what they want to hear, it can be the death knell for that candidate.
There are certainly pro-choice Republicans and anti-choice Democratic members in the world, as well as pro-NRA Democratic members and anti-NRA Republicans. Depending on the district where they live, some are able to hold these ideals because it reflects the will of their district. Mostly, however, they hold these viewpoints because it is who they are, and represents their personal beliefs, especially in smaller races like state House and state Senate.
In large races, like a federal office or a statewide office, though, these issues become greater sticking points for some voters.
Because so many of these issues have become binary divides—you either believe in a right, or not—strongly aligned voters will lose motivation to get out and support a candidate that they don’t think matches their values checklist.
At a recent candidate forum, someone brought up the issue that Democratic party elements should run more strongly anti-choice candidates for federal office. The issue was brought up as a silver bullet to win races in red states. “We must stop the litmus test,” contended a campaign consultant. I stood up and said: “Okay. I’m going to give an example: an elected official in a state I know is with the Democratic party on almost every single issue. pro-choice, pro-LGBT, pro-$15 minimum wage, etc. But they are wildly anti-teachers unions and public schools because they believe that minority children are provided bad education in their district. They have proposed legislation to offer vouchers and remove public service unions.” Immediately, a few people stood up angry: “That’s unacceptable!” For them, that was their litmus test. Every voter, whether they admit it or not, has some form of litmus test, an issue that drives them to vote. Dismissing an item as “that’s a litmus test we shouldn’t care about” is really saying: your key issue matters far less than my issue.
The three Item guideline
When candidates run, they often give a quick punch list of things they want to accomplish. To attract voters and get turnout, these items help define the values a candidate represents. A great example of this is Danica Roem. While Roem answered questions about being a transgender candidate, her winning issue revolved around traffic.
In her district, some voters fell into the default groups: defined Republicans and defined Democratic members. That middle group, the group of people who lean one way or another but sometimes turn out, sometimes stay home, can see tangible issues as a reflection of both your values and whether or not your promises seem viable.
A candidate for the U.S. House saying they will reform the federal budget seems a bit of a reach. Meanwhile, a candidate for the state house who says they want to fix the two roads coming into the community seems like an attainable goal.
Bob Dole, former Republican presidential candidate, and U.S. senator, once said the secret to winning campaigns was to offer the public three items: a tangible goal you could accomplish if elected; a reach goal that maybe you could get, maybe not: and a third long-term, somewhat pie in the sky goal that would be difficult to achieve quickly.
When Dole would return to campaign, he would tell his constituents that he had succeeded in goal No. 1, made some progress on Nos. 2 and 3. He would then add to his speech a note that because he had accomplished the first item, he had a new short-term goal, and highlight that it was a sign of him doing something.
Campaigns that build your values and issues into achievable goals that show progress give people an option to not just vote for you the first time, but a reason to keep voting for you later.
Final thoughts:
Voters are not fools. Whether Republican or Democratic, they have issues that help define how they vote. Respecting this fact can lower the amount of time you waste on the campaign trail. No matter how much you talk to traditional Republican voters, if you are on the wrong side of their litmus tests, there is very little chance they will vote for you. Identifying the values of your community and core voting base, and being knowledgeable about those issues, is critical in turning out the vote you need to win.
Next week: Traveling to a candidate training? Here’s what you need to know.
.
Nuts & Bolts: Building Democratic Campaigns
Contact the Daily Kos group Nuts and Bolts by kosmail (members of Daily Kos only). You can also follow me on twitter: @tmservo433
Every Saturday this group will chronicle the ins and outs of campaigns, small and large. Issues to be covered: Campaign Staffing, Fundraising, Canvass, Field Work, Data Services, Earned Media, Spending and Budget Practices, How to Keep Your Mental Health, and on the last Saturday of the month: “Don’t Do This!” a diary on how you can learn from the mistakes of campaigns in the past.
You can follow prior installments in this series HERE.