November 03, 2004
Politics And Business
I was talking to a friend of mine who teaches some business classes and we began to speak of the election and the Democratic party in business terms, and that got me thinking a bit.
It appears to me that most arguments about our lack of success break down into three concepts:
- Communications
- Strength Of Product
- Target Audience
We've got a real schism now, I think, in terms of where people believe we've failed. Some people think we need most of our help in Communications. Perhaps there's a better word for it - it's how we talk about our product - and more specifically, how effective you are in reaching people that you target. They believe that what we have is already great, and that we're targeting the right people - it's just a matter of communicating it better. The audience is out there; we just have to take it.
Others have serious concerns about our product itself. You can market the hell out of an inferior product, but it can really only go so far. These people were shouted down this election season, because it means by definition that you aren't part of the bubble. They're also the reactionaries after the election, saying we have to embrace guns, or give up on abortion, or cede the debate about gay marriage.
The final group thinks we're reaching out to the wrong people. Maybe it's excluding too many people, or otherwise having too small of a target audience.
My own thoughts? I think we communicated the hell out of ourselves this campaign. I think we were amazingly effective at reaching the people we targeted. I think it made the difference between our non-embarrassing presidential loss, and being blown out. I also think our product is strong, and there's no way I want us to compromises ourselves on gay rights or individual privacy rights. I don't want us to embrace fear and abdicate reason or empathy, and I don't think we have to.
But our targeting strategy was stunningly incompetent in hindsight. Our target audience was too small. I wasn't in a position to know this before the election, but the Democratic leadership should have known. This is why I'm so bitter. It's one thing to try and fail, but to not even give yourself the opportunity to succeed? It makes all the efforts we put into the presidency feel like a charade, like we were just kidding ourselves. If a company needs to make a million bucks in a year, why would they market a product that couldn't generate the sales to exceed the goal?
I know that by some definitions, we were close. But don't be deluded - Bush had broader support than the Democrats in 2000, as well - it was only because Gore won almost all of the close races that we seemed the rightful winners. And we were swamped and taken completely by surprise in 2002 - yet no one talked about 2002 in the run-up to this election. I don't blame all of us supporters for being under the impression that we could win. But that's where we should be able to trust the leadership.
This was basically a stunningly incompetent business plan implemented by the Democratic leadership. We ran ourselves out of business chasing after a population segment that couldn't sustain us by itself.
So, my thoughts on how to fix it? We have to appeal to a wider audience, without watering down our product. We have to look at the groups of people we didn't reach, and figure out how to approach them. And then we have to have a candidate that will actually appeal to them.
What's the good news? The good news is that the people who voted against us didn't actually prefer tax cuts for the rich, and bad education, and a social security system that will burn itself out, and economic policies that don't advantage them. We get to keep all that. We just need to find the guy that believes in that stuff, but also seems like the kind of man they want as a president.
I've been having the exact same thought, and you summed it up marvelously. The problems are:
- Communications: Call it marketing. I am a HUGE Kerry supporter, but in too many ways, I never really knew what he stood for. And it's hard to know what the democratic party really stands for. Oh, we hear talking points again and again until they can be said no more - but the talking points are about how the other guy is wrong. Party leaders should be ashamed.
Last night confirmed that the party learned absolutely nothing from the fiasco of 2000.
Nothing.
Why should we expect 2008 to be any different?
...sigh...
Posted by: Jalpuna! at November 4, 2004 01:19 AMI really think we did okay on marketing (in terms of reaching the voters we targeted). The thing about Kerry saying "he had a plan" without ever detailing it is another one of those unfortunate myths that everyone decided to make fun of even though it wasn't even based in reality. Like Gore and his exaggerations. The only thing Kerry didn't have along these lines was a clear example of something huge and new that he wanted to introduce, something sexy. But that wasn't the state our country was in - there was too much we needed to *fix*, to waste time on introducting distracting new wishlists for the country.
I guess for Product, I meant our Democratic Platform - our collection of beliefs and policies. I don't think we need to muck around with abandoning gay rights or pro-choice. A lot of people do thing we need to muck around with that.
For me it really does come down to targeted audience. We needed to reach out to more voters that we just ruled out from the start. There's no way that 45% of the nation is hard-right conservative evangelical christians.
Guys, when you say:
"So, my thoughts on how to fix it? We have to appeal to a wider audience, without watering down our product."
those are mutually exclusive thoughts. The African-Americans are moving away from you, because you have made them dependent on the government and it hasn't moved them from poverty. You talk class, rather than an inclusive "let's get out of your way , so you can be successful. You go "pro-war" and isolate the Peaceniks, you go appeasement and accomodation and UN and you isolate those that will stand up and fight terror. You blame America instead of praise her. You are losing Jews with your pro Palastine and Pro Arafat. You never called him out for being a terrorist, you called him a peacemaker. And finally, your side is already talking Hillary. She starts with 40%+ negatives. The people you lost to on Tuesday, do NOT like Hillary and are sick of the Clintons. What have the Clintons done for the Democrats?
Mover Mike
I don't think they're mutually exclusive. The point is that a lot of people are voting based off of "impression" rather than policies. We can keep our policies and put across a different impression. That's what'll increase the target audience.
And, right-wingers are pushing the idea of Hillary '08 more than Dems are. I agree that HIllary '08 would be a baaaaad idea for Dems.
I like your topic: is it Communications, Target audience, or Product? Let me add another possibility. Something Duin said prompted this idea. Why not run as the leftists you are? Every time you get a leftist candidate, he forgets his base and runs to the middle and you can't tell what he really believes. Then you complain about the message wasn't getting out. I consider your ideas wacky, but who am I. Parade them out there. Let's promote the UN, abortion, disarmament, National Health care, twice as much spending on our schools, Kyota treaty, all of it. I beg you, don't hold back. You will even have the MSM on your side. It's a Can't Fail Idea. Again the problem is, you don't trust the message and start shifting to the center instead of defending your leftist ideas.
Mover Mike
Mover Mike
I'll humor you... running as leftists is part of Targeting. We didn't have any trouble bringing the left in this time - they didn't stay home at a higher percentage than normal, in fact we brought them in at a higher percentage than normal.