Posted on 12/10/2013 9:36:44 AM PST by markomalley
Adam Schaefer and Nancy Smith have posted the results of some fascinating experimental research on Ken Cuccinelli’s loss in Virginia. Their research suggests “an aggressive attack on McAuliffe for supporting Obamacare was ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst. An attack on McAuliffe’s business record possibly helped, but was anemic.”
So what would have worked in Virginia?
What moved the voters most was an attack on McAuliffe’s positions on abortion; a single phone message emphasizing McAuliffe’s support for unrestricted, late-term, and taxpayer-funded abortions shifted support a net 13 to 15 points away from McAuliffe and toward Cuccinelli. The cost per vote here was a remarkably cheap $0.50 per additional vote, and even less expensive still when targeting the most persuadable segment of the electorate.
A topic declared radioactive by nearly everyone, locked away in secure storage behind a blazing Hazmat warning by the Cuccinelli campaign, appears to have been a powerful weapon for the Republican ticket that could have substantially closed the gap, and possibly even won Cuccinelli the election.
Schaefer and Smith argue the most important lesson for conducting campaigns: Do research, don’t trust your guts. Or your consultants’ guts.
Learning from failure is important. Learning the wrong lessons is disastrous.
I’ve thought for a while now is the time to start going after the rats on baby-killing.
I am the Chairman of a Virginia County Republican Committee.
Ken Cuccinelli avoided all the social issues. Totally.
As a result of that, many grassroots voters did not get involved in the campaign and did not show up to vote.
Here is an axiom to remember: If you do not preach to the choir, they will not sing.
All well and good, but what is it with people that they need to be moved by a candidate to vote their self interest? Are these grassroot voters looking forward to losing gun rights and paying higher taxes under McAuliffe?
This is what happens when you hire GOP-E scum(Romney’s people) to run your campaign.
Enough people have access to early ultrasounds and have seen the videos and pics posted on facebook. They know it’s killing a baby now. The ‘lump of tissue’ argument has been busted.
Of course it is, because quite frankly, if a person can’t be moved to vote for (or against) someone based on whether or not they support the killing of children, this country is lost already.
Keeping campaign rhetoric confined to nuts and bolts technocratic promises to provide some banal material need may motivate the professional voters; most other people will stay home.
Thank you for all your hard work in the trenches — it has to be frustrating. I am very interested in your thoughts. Did the Cuccinelli campaign do much of anything to support your county effort? If so,what?
(My perception is that little was done to even show the flag in my rural Central VA county — during the campaign or the four years that C. was AG. If he even drove up the 29 at high speed, it was kept secret. But maybe I don’t know).
Do you think it would have made a difference if Cuccinelli:
1) Put out a clear philosophy and stands on important positions, then let the “issues” play out by themselves;
2) Campaigned in Republican strongholds rather than in the northern VA Democra-stan he hails from;
3) Spent 90% of his time and money on intensive registration, absentee voting, and get-out-the-vote efforts in the rural areas where Republicans dominate the polls — instead of using expensive attack ads to try to suppress the McCauliff vote (most Dems expect their candidates to be scoundrels, thieves, and empty vessels — why advertise it for them?).
Since the Democrats made sure that everyone knew Cuccinelli was a social conservative, I do not see a failure to push “social issues” (that can fire up opponents too) as C’s problem, as much as a bad overall strategy. I would have liked to see him push a freedom agenda, in contrast to the Dems big-government socialism. But mainly, he needed to farm for votes where they are, not in the enemy’s stronghold.
Each party can win by attacking the other party on its extreme positions on social issues, if the other side doesn’t attack back.
E.G., Life - questioning the legality of contraception, no abortion not even in cases of rape or incest VS providing contraception to young girls, late term abortion
If you attack back, you neutralize the issue as far as the mushy-headed voter in the middle is concerned. But, what if the other side moves to the moderate middle on the social issues? Well, that’s a double-edged sword. Those who do this might gain something with the mushy-headed voters in the middle, but they lose something with the base of their party.
So, while I am positive that you have to attack the other side for being on the extreme side of the social issues, I’m not sure moving to the middle yourself is a winner. Here’s what I recommend: be true to yourself. Make your positions on social issues based on principles not on polls.
Ken kicked ass on the last debate and then went after Obamacare. He started mover up in the polls. He could have won if he did that in the beginning. The GOP has to go on the attack.
Regarding the Tea Party, it studiously avoids the social issues. As for social issues, I mentioned abortion. So, below is a link to a lot of information indicating that only small percentages favor making all abortions illegal or making all abortions legal. A majority favor tightening up the rules, moving in the pro-life direction incrementally. So, our side should be able to make progress on this matter. Should. In fact, we lost in Virginia this year, and in Indiana and in Missouri Senate races last year because our guys weren’t very smart about the matter.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
and if hitler hadn’t invaded Russia he would have won wwii.
why this Monday morning quarterbacking??
“Tea Party has been able to purge social conservatism from its broad, national message, while still incorporating a vast number of social conservatives into its ranks.”
Surveys of people who identify themselves as members of the Tea Party are consistent with your personal experience, in that they tend to be social conservatives. The Tea Party itself avoids taking positions on social issues. It is ecumenical. It has both social conservatives and social libertarians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.