How to campaign effectively? That is THE question needling North Carolina Democrats right now. Who knows how to do it? Million-dollar consultants? Or the people in field work who know the ground truth about voters?
Yesterday I read a Twitter thread by Chicago-based Chris Gentry, who back in 2016 was a member of our field team here in Watauga. Just for comparison, which is admittedly odorous, in 2016 Watauga County went for Hillary Clinton while the state went to Trump. In Watauga, Clinton won 47.15% of the vote to Trump's 45.68%, which translated to a 441-vote margin. Meanwhile in the state as a whole, Trump took 49.83% to Clinton's 47.17%, a difference of 173,315 votes.Chris was a big part of that. He connected with people like few can. But exceptional field operatives like Chris are most often students, and inevitably they graduate and move on. So we lost Chris for the next election cycle. But he landed a job as a field organizer for the Progressive Turnout Project (PTP), an "independent expenditure" PAC that spent over $6 million in the 2018 General Elections in a handful of states. Here's what they were doing on the ground, according to their own website:
"Progressive Turnout Project is a grassroots-funded organization with a single mission: get Democrats to the polls. We design, test, and execute specialized voter turnout programs targeting inconsistent Democratic voters in the most competitive districts in the country. In 2017, our trained teams flipped 10 Republican House of Delegate districts in Virginia. In 2018, we’ll bring that same strategy to competitive districts across the country."
...voters rarely care about policies. To say they vote on "vibes" is a bit reductive but is closer to the truth.The average voter is going to remember maybe a sentence about a candidate for Mayor, and maybe 2 or 3 words about a candidate for Alderman.It's a little overused but I like the voting as an expression of social cohesion model, and have found it personally to be the most reflective. We vote for the candidate that we think best supports our self identified social groups.So I vote as a transit activist [Chris is a dedicated bicyclist], a resident of Pilsen, a progressive, a veteran, etc. I promise you that less than 2% of voters are going to go so far as to look at a candidates website[....]
In other words, it's all in the candidate, and you can't fake genuineness. Unless you're prepared to knock doors and find out the current headspace of the people you need you're not going anywhere. This is why the phrase "candidate fits the district" is the hardest lesson for progressives to learn.
6 comments:
Okay, so "the candidate has to fit the district," but what about progressives (or even moderates) who live in rural, right-wing districts? We don't fit the district. Do we just give up?
I would never say that. It takes renewed persistence and creativity in candidate recruitment.
You should give up and give us a break.
Not everyone wants what you are trying to sell, and never will.
You're not going to get majority of people to believe what you do everywhere.
Why not let the right run the areas where they live instead of trying to convert them by creative candidates?
The left has been gaining power in the urban areas, look at any election map.
Then look at all the surrounding rural areas, you're not popular, but you control where the laws and taxes are made.
And that's the problem.
Actually, progressives often fit the rural districts in which we live...because we all want good schools, decent services, and nobody messing up the air our families breathe or the water in our wells. And we’re willing to govern in ways to accomplish that.
Don't conservative candidates and voters want good schools, decent services, and clean air and water?
If that is all Progressives wanted, yes, they would fit in.
But there is more isn't there?
"But there is more isn't there?"
What horribles do you suspect Progressives want? By the way, republicans want more too.
Post a Comment