I understand the points you are raising, but it's unclear how voters who refuse to educate themselves on the issues they claim to care about, can be reached.
They are drawn to Trump's propaganda about law and order, but seem oblivious to the facts that crime has dropped under Biden, border crossings have plummeted, Harris has continually stressed her prosecutorial background (n/w/s the woman who believes vague nonsense about Harris' record).
What specifically are the steps to reach such disengaged voters? I understand the messaging angle, but what "delivery system" reaches such disengaged voters?
This is a really good question and gets to the core of what a campaign really is. The idea that somehow 'good policy' or even talking about policy, unfortunately isn't what politicians do on campaigns...at least most of the time. What's far more important is what we call "setting the frame' of the campaign....meaning the parameters of the debate.
In warfare its basically choosing the ground upon which the battle will be fought.
Also keep in mind were coming upon Labor Day, when most voters realize an election is coming so they will start to turn in more and their opinions will better solidify....that's what this focus group work shows. The Harris campaign is doing basically everything they can do and doing it well....but they are fighting an uphill battle.
Kamala Harris is a black, female, former DA of San Francisco California. Rightly or wrongly none of those scream LAW AND ORDER to the average white working class voter in swing states.
Bottom line is they're doing it. And doing it well to this point. We'll have to see if it works.
Welcome to SubStack, Mike. This is a great forum for your work.
I appreciated the inclusion of the focus group clips, much easier to digest here than on Twitter. I use focus groups in my litigation practice and this was a fascinating (and confirming) glimpse into how mercurial they can be. This tracks very much with my own experience of them. Your comments on the perspective of these individuals as a threshold matter seems to me to be key, they are low information voters and this cannot be understated or poohpoohed. Much as with jurors, a campaign may see them as dumb or just not “getting” it, but you do so at your peril. At the end of the day, they are still your audience. While connecting with each one’s particular lived experience and biases is impossible (much easier but still challenging even with only twelve people), identification of the overall trends or movement as you often put it, is where the rubber meets the road.
Hence my hope that the Harris campaign continues its revolutionary position on border security but invests in being nimble on the remainder of its messaging in the weeks to come. I agree with you and Molly and Ron’s comments on Politicology that an overall here’s-my-plan-for-America message would be helpful at this point.
Having said that, I wonder though, is that more of an informed voter preference or do the low-information voters need that message as well? As a campaign strategist, are both aspects necessary for a successful campaign in your opinion across various types of voters? If you were in charge of Harris’ message on her plan for America, what would you include ?
Wow! This is such a great question. Very insightful Laura. You’re pushing my brain here and I haven’t had coffee yet!
I think the three of us are lamenting that there really hasn’t been an articulation of American values from our leadership since the end of the Cold War. In many ways this could be a result of the decline of elitism and the influence of elites as populism rises and technology flattens the hierarchal nature of institutions (including political parties).
Technically the answer to your question is no. The average voter (or elites for that matter) don’t need that message to be persuaded to vote for someone. I would argue we haven’t had that and we’ve still had people elected to office.
The bigger question is should we.
Harris convention speech was truly extraordinary. Not just in style and delivery- though it was. It was an argument for American exceptionalism. That we had an obligation to lead the world and engage in the universal fight for democracies and against tyranny.
This was Republicanism during the Cold War. It’s now the creed of the Democratic Party which was much more anti-interventionist and critical of American foreign policy. Today the Republicans have taken on that role
I think strategically I would be advising she do precisely what she’s doing though in truth, I would have never imagined she, or any other Democrat would.
Is this helpful? It has been for me! I think I may discuss it on MikeDrop - I’ll be bringing the podcast here to substack
Great to see you on a platform other than Twitter. Miss Mike Drop, but I realize you've been super busy, and yet, I still yearn for your commentary.
I see a lot of mention of Trump's team using non-standard methods for specifically reaching young men through podcasts. And it is deemed very effective by many.
Question is: What do you think the Harris team can do to both combat this as well as more effectively reach those margins that you keep talking about?
Hey Greg! Thanks so much for the kind comment. One of the reasons I started the Substack is because I can bring MikeDrop back here as well! While we may not be able to use a live call in feature for questions (yet) I think we’ve got some good ideas on how to get peoples questions answered. Should be happening really soon - let me know your thoughts once we get going.
The DNC’s focus on content creators was a good start. I think the breakdown of traditional media is going to happen even more rapidly now and there will be a greater emphasis on getting the active support of content creators with influential networks, much like the way we used to try to secure politicians endorsements.
On-line coalition building will become a premium. Policy focus will become less important. The parties will grow even less ideological and the network effect will consume our campaigns.
I understand the points you are raising, but it's unclear how voters who refuse to educate themselves on the issues they claim to care about, can be reached.
They are drawn to Trump's propaganda about law and order, but seem oblivious to the facts that crime has dropped under Biden, border crossings have plummeted, Harris has continually stressed her prosecutorial background (n/w/s the woman who believes vague nonsense about Harris' record).
What specifically are the steps to reach such disengaged voters? I understand the messaging angle, but what "delivery system" reaches such disengaged voters?
This is a really good question and gets to the core of what a campaign really is. The idea that somehow 'good policy' or even talking about policy, unfortunately isn't what politicians do on campaigns...at least most of the time. What's far more important is what we call "setting the frame' of the campaign....meaning the parameters of the debate.
In warfare its basically choosing the ground upon which the battle will be fought.
Also keep in mind were coming upon Labor Day, when most voters realize an election is coming so they will start to turn in more and their opinions will better solidify....that's what this focus group work shows. The Harris campaign is doing basically everything they can do and doing it well....but they are fighting an uphill battle.
Kamala Harris is a black, female, former DA of San Francisco California. Rightly or wrongly none of those scream LAW AND ORDER to the average white working class voter in swing states.
Bottom line is they're doing it. And doing it well to this point. We'll have to see if it works.
Sorry, Mike. It’s already lunchtime in Texas and I’ve already had my breakfast tacos!
Welcome to SubStack, Mike. This is a great forum for your work.
I appreciated the inclusion of the focus group clips, much easier to digest here than on Twitter. I use focus groups in my litigation practice and this was a fascinating (and confirming) glimpse into how mercurial they can be. This tracks very much with my own experience of them. Your comments on the perspective of these individuals as a threshold matter seems to me to be key, they are low information voters and this cannot be understated or poohpoohed. Much as with jurors, a campaign may see them as dumb or just not “getting” it, but you do so at your peril. At the end of the day, they are still your audience. While connecting with each one’s particular lived experience and biases is impossible (much easier but still challenging even with only twelve people), identification of the overall trends or movement as you often put it, is where the rubber meets the road.
Hence my hope that the Harris campaign continues its revolutionary position on border security but invests in being nimble on the remainder of its messaging in the weeks to come. I agree with you and Molly and Ron’s comments on Politicology that an overall here’s-my-plan-for-America message would be helpful at this point.
Having said that, I wonder though, is that more of an informed voter preference or do the low-information voters need that message as well? As a campaign strategist, are both aspects necessary for a successful campaign in your opinion across various types of voters? If you were in charge of Harris’ message on her plan for America, what would you include ?
Wow! This is such a great question. Very insightful Laura. You’re pushing my brain here and I haven’t had coffee yet!
I think the three of us are lamenting that there really hasn’t been an articulation of American values from our leadership since the end of the Cold War. In many ways this could be a result of the decline of elitism and the influence of elites as populism rises and technology flattens the hierarchal nature of institutions (including political parties).
Technically the answer to your question is no. The average voter (or elites for that matter) don’t need that message to be persuaded to vote for someone. I would argue we haven’t had that and we’ve still had people elected to office.
The bigger question is should we.
Harris convention speech was truly extraordinary. Not just in style and delivery- though it was. It was an argument for American exceptionalism. That we had an obligation to lead the world and engage in the universal fight for democracies and against tyranny.
This was Republicanism during the Cold War. It’s now the creed of the Democratic Party which was much more anti-interventionist and critical of American foreign policy. Today the Republicans have taken on that role
I think strategically I would be advising she do precisely what she’s doing though in truth, I would have never imagined she, or any other Democrat would.
Is this helpful? It has been for me! I think I may discuss it on MikeDrop - I’ll be bringing the podcast here to substack
This is a great response! Thank you. Can’t wait for the renewal of the MikeDrop. We are entering peak season for it!
Hey Mike,
Great to see you on a platform other than Twitter. Miss Mike Drop, but I realize you've been super busy, and yet, I still yearn for your commentary.
I see a lot of mention of Trump's team using non-standard methods for specifically reaching young men through podcasts. And it is deemed very effective by many.
Question is: What do you think the Harris team can do to both combat this as well as more effectively reach those margins that you keep talking about?
Hey Greg! Thanks so much for the kind comment. One of the reasons I started the Substack is because I can bring MikeDrop back here as well! While we may not be able to use a live call in feature for questions (yet) I think we’ve got some good ideas on how to get peoples questions answered. Should be happening really soon - let me know your thoughts once we get going.
The DNC’s focus on content creators was a good start. I think the breakdown of traditional media is going to happen even more rapidly now and there will be a greater emphasis on getting the active support of content creators with influential networks, much like the way we used to try to secure politicians endorsements.
On-line coalition building will become a premium. Policy focus will become less important. The parties will grow even less ideological and the network effect will consume our campaigns.