Campaigning to win in 2012.

    By Oxy Mora on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 7:29am |

    Here are Oxy's 5 constructs for winning in 2012. Each construct has five steps. 1. Position 2. opponent's response. 3. Counter argument. 4. Opponents response (ignore it). 5. Clincher.

    A1. Restore revenue at the top 2% income level.

           2. The rich create jobs. Kills jobs.

                3. Top earners create some jobs. But it's people who do the work.

                     4. (doesn't matter)

                          5.It's people who do the work. Money in a lock box does not help anybody.

    A2. Use new revenue to promote job growth, build roads and bridges.

            2. Government doesn't create jobs, companies do.

                 3. It's people who do the work. People build roads and bridges.

                     4. (doesn't matter)

                         5. People are hurting and need to get back to work.

    C1. Protect Social Security and Medicare from Tea Party attacks.

            2. (doesn't matter)

                 3. Opponent voted to turn Social Security and Medicare into a voucher system.

                     4. (doesn't matter)

                         5. Vouchers would put seniors at the mercy of the market. Your Tea Party voted to kill Social Security and Medicare. (Tie the effing Tea Party around opponents neck.)

    D1.. Protect our air, water and open spaces.

            2. EPA regulations are killing companies and killing jobs.

                3. Dirty air and water are making children sick. Destroying hunting and fishing in open spaces.

                    4. (doesn't matter)

                       5 Opponent thinks we can pollute our way to prosperity. If we lose the environment we lose everything.

    E1.  Businesses need to pay their own way in the communities where they live.

          2.Companies and jobs are being killed by taxes.

              3. Business profits depend upon educated workers and good roads.

                 4. (doesn't matter)

                     5. Businesses depend upon educated workers and roads. They need to pay their fair share.

    Continued in comments below.

     

    Comments

    The Pew research divides the voting public into 8 groups. At the far right are the Staunch's and Main Street Republicans. They have grown closer together and eliminated what was once a third and more moderate category. There are three groups of Democrats. There are three groups among Independents.

    I have picked positions that are either clear winners with the general public or operate as wedge issues for Republicans and Independents.

    There seem to be three possible wedge issue in the two groups on the right. Surprisingly, about half of Main Street Republicans think businesses make too much profit(my words). Then in general polls a clear majority of the population thinks taxes on the top 2% should be raised. And a balanced package or revenues and cuts has wide support. If some of the Main Street-ers get a belly full of Perry, maybe some would be peeled away or stay home.

    The Tea Party support of the Ryan Bill to privatize and voucherize Social Security and Medicare should be a major line of attack. Tie candidates to this Tea Party vote. 

    The Tea Party attack on the EPA is a big error on the part of Perry. This issue cuts hard with some of the 3 groups in the middle.

    The diversity among Independents is as big a problem for Democrats as it is Republicans. There is a group called the "Disaffected" who voted for Obama in 2008 but against him in 2010. In my opinion both Joe Biden and Obama are looking too long in the tooth to appeal to this group.

    This is a rough draft. I recommend reading the Pew report on political typology and taking the quiz.

    http://people-press.org/typology/quiz.

    Buck up Democrats. We have only just begun to fight.


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 7:54am

    Constructs A, B & E resolve to the jobs issue. And possibly D as well.

    Construct C could resolve to the jobs issue in the sense, why do we work if our money is taken away by corporations.  


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 9:09am

    If this were a debate you'd win. However, your opponent isn't debating you on the issues. They're making statements of what they believe are facts ... mostly your option 2's ... and refuse to compromise that what they believe might be in error.

    It's like trying to feed oats to a dead horse. The only way you're going to get them to listen to reason will be when you let them do what they believe is right and watch it fail right before their eyes. Only then will you be able to talk so sense into them.

     


    by Beetlejuice on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:58am

    Thanks Beetle. I assume there might be an audience judging the debate. I thinks what's hardest for me is to do what they do--after step three ignore what they say until you get the opening for the clincher, which resolves to the job issue. I really recommend taking the on-line quiz. I think of myself as more to the center, but I solidly identify with their category, Liberal, 14% of the population.


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:51am

    Although I did take the test, I was wary with only two options, which were actually yes or no responses to the questions asked. I have a hard time seeing how they could categorize respondents into 9 political flavors. I changed a few answers to the opposite of the first and wound up with a new political flavor. So it depends on the number of yes to no answers given which determine which political flavor you are. That doesn't strike me as accurate.

    So I still maintain whomever you are speaking with will not engage you with a debate of the issue, rather they'll just repeat their message over and over again and not consider the issue debatable. The poll didn't get near that talking point.


    by Beetlejuice on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:16pm

    Right, it has flaws as any categorization system does. I believe that some Independents will engage and if they don't I don't think Obama has much of a chance.

    Of course I posited this as a debate. It doesn't cover the world of advertising, in particular negative advertising.


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:26pm

    However, have you noticed Huntsman is open to debate on issues the rest of the GOPer pac have decided is settle? I guess there are a few old-time Republicans in the GOPer camp still. Debating issues might become another enjoyable political venue for the public to see and hear politicians debate issues that goes beyond sound-bites set in stone. He could easily pull independents away from Obama from what I've been hearing from him lately. But the GOPer's nominating a candidate to attract independents and left leaning centrist Democrats is beyond the grasp of their base.


    by Beetlejuice on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:51pm

    I did notice Huntsman and it was refreshing. I was thinking Huntsman might be setting himself up for 2016. Let's say, after Perry has lost the election for them in 2012 by being too extreme. I don't think Huntsman can rise to the top this year.

    Too bad for Republicans that they don't have a Southern populist who is not also a tea bagger.


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:10pm

    Huntsman 2016.  Yes.  He could become the McCain of the 21st Century.  I mean the guy is tweeting about Captain Beefheart. I have to say that I would be okay with him being president, wouldn't be thrilled, but I could live with it. 


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:42pm

    I don't know about you but I just think it's breaking a social code to bite the hand that feeds you. I mean can't most people see that Obama made him presidential material by giving him the Ambassadorship. And to turn against your benefactor is not very admirable in anyone's book. If he were to be the candidate, I think this "turn coat" effect would really work against him. But not a problem in 2016.


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 3:11pm

    Because he is running for the nomination in the other party I think balances out the breaking of the social code.  In one sense, one can see Huntsman running is a favor to Obama because he shows, through juxtaposition, just how whack the other candidates are.  At this point I wouldn't be surprised after he drops out of the race for the 2012 nomination that he switches party and becomes a Democrat.  or an Independent like Chafee.  Now there is a ticket - Huntsman/Chafee 2016.  Jon and Lincoln. 


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 3:19pm

    This is good outline for those in the blue and leaning blue areas of the country.  Incumbent Dems could definitely get themselves back using this. 

    The one thing lacking in my humble opinion, and that which is necessary to make inroads on the incumbent Republicans in the purple and a few of the red areas, is the question of being fiscally responsible.  The simple counter to the entire outline is "this has been tried in Europe and it failed.  My opponent, who is just another tax and spend liberal, wants the US to become the next Greece."


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:05pm

    Greece is not only a small country, it is small even in relation to the European Union. Greece is not the U.S. But what is happening in the U.K. is important. The U.K cut to the bone and tanked their economy. Perhaps my opponent would like to run for the House of Commons, and lose over there.But over here we need more jobs, not less.


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:31pm

    You're the one that is proposing the sound bite approach.  Of course the US and Greece and the EU is more complicated than the above statement.  But that isn't going to stop the opponent from saying it.  Anybody who is just hearing the headlines on the stock market knows that a lot of the current panic is occurring because of concerns regarding Europe.  They don't know the details and probably never will.  To many Europe = Socialism.  They've heard Italy Greece and host of other European countries are in danger of default.  Just like the US almost was - in the minds.  The notion floating in their heads, among many other notions, is that if we don't get our spending under control, we will soon be like those imploding socialist countries.  If you want to disregard these voters, that's fine.  But you not going to make any inroads in many of purple areas, and definitely not unseat the Republicans in red areas.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:42pm

    I agree with my opponent we should not follow Europe's example. That is why we need both a long term reduction plan as well as a near term jobs program. We don't want to cut so much that we tank our economy, as Britain did. Can my opponent hold both of those thoughts-long term and short term-in his mind at the same time?


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:05pm

    That's the ticket. Yeah.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:18pm

    Having said that, Trope, check out the three sections of Independents. They are very discordant. It's hard to know what issue will cut here without pissing someone else off. I fear Obama's loss of youth will really hurt here. Maybe a younger V.P.?


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:41pm

    I suppose the point is that there is no boiler plate approach for Dems that is going to work in blue, purple and red regions.  Blue Dogs exist for a reason.  I just don't it is realistic to believe that Dems could overturn decades and decades of socio-political discourse in one election cycles. One is always going to "piss" someone off, or alienate them.  In places like here in eastern Indiana, the politicians choose to alienate the liberals.

    (Unfortunately pointing to FDR and what he did in the 1930s, eighty years ago, is enough to convince people anymore.  I suppose FDR wouldn't have been too successful if he made his case on things done in the 1850s.  Unfortunately we don't have clear cut example in recent times that we can point to which would make sense to low and medium information voters.  In the weirdness bizarro world of American politics, the best things for progressives is that Obama is ultimately successful (ie he is in power when the economy turns around) because he is, rightly or wrongly, representative of the liberal agenda to a huge swath of the population, esp those who we are trying to turn around in the socio-political views.)

     


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:00pm

    (Having said that, a key facet of the political landscape within which Dems are working, is represented in the first question from your link: Government often does a better job than people give it credit for - General Public 39%.  One can posit with relative certainty that the less blue an area is the lower this number will go.  One way to look at is that a voter may agree with you that spending money on an infrastructure project will help the economy, create jobs, etc, but believe that in reality the money appropriated to do this will get sucked into the federal bureaucracy black hole and not create those jobs.) 


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:09pm

    I think you hit on the crux of the matter. Views of government. You have to appeal to the programs people like. Show some reforms.

    Cite the turnaround of the automobile industry. Very clean program. In and Out.

    Obama needs to be able to cite some significant "reforms" of government programs.
    I wonder if he might propose a major overhaul of the Dept. of Education.


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:21pm

    The auto industry bail out is one of those things here in eastern Indiana which would resonate.  Had the Detroit imploded it would have been the final nail on our economy here which has been devastated over the past decade plus with contraction of the industrial manufacturing in the country, especially those tied to the auto industry. 

    I don't know about focusing on reforms in education.  A little too nuanced for most voters when they are thinking about jobs and the economy.  Although I know the hot issue among many local CEOs is investing in early childhood education (0-5 years). It has the cold hard facts about ROI and it has the heart strings of helping the kids.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:32pm

    Trope, I missed this before. That's a very significant thing you just brought up about the CEO's supporting early education. That would have legs as part of a general debate. Really good issue.

    On Education, I don't frankly know what the Dept. of Education does with the money. But I have enough of the Libertarian in me to suspect that it's a hell of a bureaucracy. Why not reform it, downsize it.

    Thanks for playing the Republican foil.


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 10:06am

    Agree, Indiana is a tough sell as a state. Don't know the individual districts. I do think the Tea Party taking away SS and Medicare in the form of the Ryan Bill vote is potentially devastating to some Republican Freshmen. The same anger that fueled the Tea Party can be turned the other way around.


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:16pm

    My district (Indiana 2) is going to be interesting because Pence (boooo, hisssss) is leaving to run for governor (god help us all).  So no incumbent will be running and it can be then a real issue driven election.  The "evangelical" vote is intensely strong here, so there is no way a strong liberal can win.  But if we can get a blue dog like Bookout, it will be a major victory.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:36pm

    Right. Genghis was right the other day, there is no daylight whatsoever between Staunch and Main St. Republicans. Religious wedge can't work. Although I wonder if Democrats have done enough in parsing big government vs. intrusive government.


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:03pm

    Liberals do need to take the long view approach that those conservatives did many moons ago, and the difference between big government versus intrusive government is one the areas that need to be focused on.  We can't expect to effectively parse this in one election cycle, but over the long run we can get the general public, to use that term, to embrace big government.  It takes a village.  And all that.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:38pm

    I know nothing about advertising other than what I learned from Don Draper. But it seems to me that the intrusive gov't idea, separation of church and state, etc., is best handled by targeted advertising. When I started these constructs I wanted to put in Separation of Church and State, but it just didn't fit.


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 3:04pm

    From a 50 state perspective, the whole separation of church and state is something the Dems should just stay away from.  If the topic is raised, simply state our religious/spiritual beliefs inform our values and decisions, and leave it at that.  Nothing will undermine a Dem quicker outside the bluest blue areas than to be seen as attacking religion.  All one has to do is see how long Purpose Driven Life stayed a best seller and how many study groups were formed around it.

    (let's also remember that Obama invited Rick Warren to be a part of his inauguration.)


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 3:12pm

    Wrap. And notes to myself.

    When I initially listed my 5 positions, I had not specifically thought of Republican responses. After I finished the whole exercise, I realized maybe for the first time how much the Republican arguments against common sense government boils down to lopsided support for businesses and corporations. 

    In a sense the five positions are core Democratic principles. When those positions are put forth strongly. the Republican response resolves to a defense of businesses. We need to overturn the perception that businesses are the victims of taxation and posit that the burden to provide the public services and the education of workers which are vital to business is falling unfairly on the community itself.  In other words, no community, no roads, no educated workers, no profit.

    "When you have no profit, you have no taxes. Is that what you want?"

    Trope's comment about gov't trust prompted me to take a longer look at the Pew Research. There is a fascinating set of charts comparing "Trust in Gov't" to other charts, such as Consumer sentiment, Unemployment and such. In 2010, the "trust" issue developed a hard inner core of anger. When people don't trust government they apparently want it downsized and reforms, the only tangible things which address the distrust. It seems clear that a large segment of the middle is not going to accept lip service from Obama in 2012 along the line of downsizing and reforming government.  


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 10:37am

    Latest Comments