The data are crystal clear that doing things like backing down to the president after he vetoes a responsible bill that puts a few restraints on his war spending always will lead to loss of stature for Democrats, and doubts about their strength and courage -- and hence their possible leadership on national defense. What happened after the vote to back down to a president at 28 president in the polls on an unpopular war was completely predictable -- and I predicted it to party leaders the second I read, with disbelief, what the Congress had done....First, and foremost, what's the right thing to do? Second, once you've decided that, what's the best way to make an emotionally compelling case to the American people for it? Third, how can we think like chess players -- to imagine six moves ahead what the other side is going to do and be ready for it -- and lay traps for demagogues, not to back off because we're playing checkers and thinking one move ahead (e.g.: "We better not do that because they'll say we don't support our troops").
We might want to learn from Hollywood, though, which has found ways to get the average American thinking about issues like race in movies like "Mississippi Burning" and "Ray." If we make clear why something is important -- not with numbers but with emotion -- people will listen to the numbers.
I think it was unethical not to talk about George Bush's character in 2000 and 2004. We've seen why.
...no question that had Al Gore not refused to utter Clinton's name -- and hence prevent himself from telling a positive story about what the two of them had accomplished in eight years in office, and from responding to attacks that tried to elide Clinton's indiscretions with a trumped-up issue about Gore's character -- he wouldn't have needed a recount in Florida.
...the best research estimates that about 40 percent of our tendency to be conservative or liberal is actually genetic, and that you can predict remarkably well from preschool behavior who will become liberal or conservative in adulthood. On the other hand, most of our partisan feelings reflect the values we learn at home.
The other major influence -- and the last time for changing most people's partisan affiliation -- is between age 18 and 30, after which these things calcify, and the brain tends to work overtime to deny realities it doesn't want to believe from a partisan perspective. That's why it's so important now for the Democratic Party (if you're a Democrat) to tie every Republican incumbent to George Bush and the War, and to start telling a coherent, compelling story about what it means to be a Democrat and why you'd want to be one. The conservatives knew this a long time ago, and they established their "brand" really clearly under Ronald Reagan. (my emphasis)
...When someone is attacking your character, as Bush did with Gore and Kerry, the failure to attack back generally is taken as a signal either that you have no answer or that you're weak. There are regional differences on this, which I talk about in my book, that are incredibly important for candidates to know about -- and are a reason why Southern consultants generally have been most successful in electing presidents since the 1960s.
...Republicans should put a lid on the hate -- and if they don't, Democrats should call hate by its proper name until it's no longer politically advantageous to play on it.
...Draw people in with something that grabs their attention -- which means grabs their emotions -- and activates their values, concerns or hopes; give them the reasons they should listen to you on this -- this is where your data and logical arguments come in, although it's still not devoid of emotion, because you want their minds and values engaged; and end with an appeal to their emotions, values and what they need to know about you, namely that you share their values and you understand and care about people like them.