People are not all that interested in you, and with luck they will remember one or two things. Decide what that is.
I take a close look at a candidate announcement. It was a failure.
Jamie McLeod-Skinner announced her intention to run for Congress in Oregon's 2nd Congressional District. The local newspaper ran a Page One story.
Headline in the Mail Tribune:
The headline included her name and photo. So far so good. It could have simply read: "Greg Walden gets additional opponent," which would have been bad. That headline would have framed her as just another nuisance for Greg Walden.
 |
| Jamie McLeod-Skinner |
Former Phoenix city manager Jamie McLeod-Skinner, a former Santa Clara, California, city councilor whose work ranged from refugee relief to planning for metropolitan governments, will seek the Democratic Party nomination for the 2nd District congressional seat held by Greg Walden, R-Hood River.
McLeod-Skinner has already informed Democratic Party organizations in the district of her intent to run in 2018. A formal announcement with details on her campaign organization will be made next week over the internet, she said.
Walden has not been responsive to local issues and is more focused on Washington, D.C. politics, the candidate said. McLeod-Skinner joins a growing field of candidates who may view Walden as vulnerable due to his involvement in Republican efforts to craft a health care plan to replace the Affordable Care Act.
The candidate got good treatment, given what she gave them. The lead sentence and paragraph is who she is, defined by her work history, and what she wants, to be elected to congress. The second sentence explains her plans. The third sentence offers her campaign rationale: "Walden has not been responsive to local issues and is more focused on Washington, D.C. politics, the candidate said."
The article later gives a sole example of Walden's failure as a representative, quoting her directly: “He has not been supportive of local solutions. Things like the Klamath Basin restoration agreement. That’s a good example of a wide spectrum of interests ... coming to a political solution,” said McLeod-Skinner. “He didn’t support it, and it died in Congress. He would not carry it out.”
There we have it: her first impression. I think it is weak and self destructive.
The premise of this blog is that most people are not paying close attention, that most people are not all that interested in most candidates. For convenience and economy of mental effort people pigeon-hole candidates into a mental brand, some pre-set category they have already created in their minds It is unfair. It is demeaning to candidates in how it over-simplifies the rich complexity of a human being. It jumps to a conclusion. It stereotypes.
This is, however, how the world works. A candidate plays by those rules so he or she better understand those rules.
(I understand that this blog, too, plays by rules. I try to have an interesting headline, otherwise people delete the blog without reading it. I recognize that the photo of McLeod-Skinner above means fewer readers than if it showed Melania Trump naked. I willingly pay that price.)
My impression of Jamie McLeod-Skinner: "She's probably an Ashland liberal who wants kumbaya cooperation, and she is no threat to Walden."
What could McLeod-Skinner have done to have improved this? Some of this is totally unfair and unreasonable, but McLeod-Skinner is not entitled to be in Congress, she is in a competition for it. She must work with voters as they are, not as the diligent, fair-minded people we all might wish they are.
1. Bad name. I don't have mental shelf space to keep track of all the candidates' names in this race, especially people who want me to remember two names for one person. Cher and Madonna get by with one name. Movie stars are a brand and they have easy names to remember. (I admit that Catherine Zeta Jones tries using three names, but she works very hard to pull it off and "Cathy Jones" is very vanilla.) I know of no actors with hyphenated names, nor any successful politicians. McLeod-Skinner leaves me wondering whether to alphabetize her under McLeod or Skinner. Her name is confusing and tiresome.
Recommendation: Pick one name, probably Jamie McLeod.
2. Break the cliche. McLeod-Skinner is female, from Ashland, was a government planner, worked helping refugees, was manager of a small city, and from her photograph appears to have a healthy, natural look. I am totally prepared, based on her name, her photograph, and her biography to jump to a conclusion and pigeon-hole her as another good hearted Ashland liberal whose orientation is all about getting disparate groups together to cooperate about water, fish, and forests someplace far away, in a collaboration whose details I cannot keep straight. She is easy to picture as a good candidate for a staff job at the Forest Service, or working for a public radio station. McLeod-Skinner fits right into my mental stereotype of someone who wants empathetic sharing at evening meetings in conference rooms to create a compromise report that actual decision makers ignore. Very "Ashland." I recognize this is totally unfair--which is my point.
Recommendation: surprise me with something in the first impression so I can envision her in the pigeon hole of a 2nd Congressional District decision maker and policy warrior.
3. Be memorable as an alternative to the incumbent's weakness. As this blog has reported, Greg Walden's great vulnerability is that he told voters he wanted inexpensive health care with wider access, yet the bill that came out of his committee reduces health care access to tens of thousands of his constituents. He is looks and acts embarrassed as he tries to sell an implausible story that spending billions less money actually means more health care. It speaks well for his ethics that he is uncomfortable with having badly misled his constituents, which he is dealing with by hiding out looking terribly busy with rodeos and dam visits and other local matters, while ignoring the giant sick elephant in the room, the Trumpcare elephant he helped create.
Voters are barely getting to understand Trumpcare, but they already hate it, but not one voter in a thousand can summarize accurately the Klamath Basin restoration project--and many of the ones who are able actually to summarize it oppose it, which is why it went nowhere. McLeod-Skinner's case against Walden is 180 degrees misdirected. She has led off with something few people understand (Klamath restoration) instead of something many people care about (broken promise of health access.) Worse, she is criticizing him for not doing enough hiding out with small-ball local distractions, when in fact his real vulnerability is Trumpcare, the elephant in the room.
Recommendation: Criticize Walden for what he did wrong that is unpopular, not for his greatest political virtue, his visible constituent service in the District.
4. Lead with something simple and clear and true. It is objectively true that Trumpcare was written in large part in his committee. It is objectively true that Trumpcare is complicated and unpopular, being criticized by Republicans and Democrats both. It is objectively true that tens of thousands of Oregonians will lose health insurance and Medicaid access, as attested to by the CBO. It is objectively true that Walden assured people constantly that he would protect people with pre-existing conditions and continue healthcare access to the working poor, and there are lots of Republicans officeholders who are loudly saying Trumpcare does neither.
Therefore, a candidate has the opportunity to lead with a simple, clear, true reason to replace Walden: that he wrote and voted for a bill that hurts Oregonians after having promised to do the opposite.
Recommendation: be memorable as the candidate who calls Walden on his vulnerable spot, his authorship and support of Trumpcare.
What might be a memorable first impression? This message: s "Jamie McLeod announced her candidacy denouncing Walden for writing Trumpcare, an expensive sellout to the insurance industry that breaks his promise to Oregonians."
That is about as much as a voter can remember: name, link Walden to unpopular Trumpcare, unpopular health insurance companies, and broken promises by politicians. Of course there are other issues, ones the candidate can discuss one-on-one with people at fundraising receptions. But 98% of the people will cast their vote based on a couple of simple impressions of who the candidate is and what they represent. "Jamie McLeod, a Democrat, denouncing Walden for writing Trumpcare, an expensive sellout to the insurance industry, just like a typical congressman" is about what most people will know.
Bad-Trumpcare, greedy-insurance-companies, and congressmen-who-lie are all ideas that are well embedded in the public mind. A candidate does not need to teach that. It is already taught and understood. Go with that flow. The key for a candidate is to link their own name to the combination of those bad things. Repeat. Repeat again.
There we have it: her first impression. I think it is weak and self destructive.
The premise of this blog is that most people are not paying close attention, that most people are not all that interested in most candidates. For convenience and economy of mental effort people pigeon-hole candidates into a mental brand, some pre-set category they have already created in their minds It is unfair. It is demeaning to candidates in how it over-simplifies the rich complexity of a human being. It jumps to a conclusion. It stereotypes.
This is, however, how the world works. A candidate plays by those rules so he or she better understand those rules.
(I understand that this blog, too, plays by rules. I try to have an interesting headline, otherwise people delete the blog without reading it. I recognize that the photo of McLeod-Skinner above means fewer readers than if it showed Melania Trump naked. I willingly pay that price.)
My impression of Jamie McLeod-Skinner: "She's probably an Ashland liberal who wants kumbaya cooperation, and she is no threat to Walden."
What could McLeod-Skinner have done to have improved this? Some of this is totally unfair and unreasonable, but McLeod-Skinner is not entitled to be in Congress, she is in a competition for it. She must work with voters as they are, not as the diligent, fair-minded people we all might wish they are.
 |
| Catherine Zeta Jones |
1. Bad name. I don't have mental shelf space to keep track of all the candidates' names in this race, especially people who want me to remember two names for one person. Cher and Madonna get by with one name. Movie stars are a brand and they have easy names to remember. (I admit that Catherine Zeta Jones tries using three names, but she works very hard to pull it off and "Cathy Jones" is very vanilla.) I know of no actors with hyphenated names, nor any successful politicians. McLeod-Skinner leaves me wondering whether to alphabetize her under McLeod or Skinner. Her name is confusing and tiresome.
Recommendation: Pick one name, probably Jamie McLeod.
2. Break the cliche. McLeod-Skinner is female, from Ashland, was a government planner, worked helping refugees, was manager of a small city, and from her photograph appears to have a healthy, natural look. I am totally prepared, based on her name, her photograph, and her biography to jump to a conclusion and pigeon-hole her as another good hearted Ashland liberal whose orientation is all about getting disparate groups together to cooperate about water, fish, and forests someplace far away, in a collaboration whose details I cannot keep straight. She is easy to picture as a good candidate for a staff job at the Forest Service, or working for a public radio station. McLeod-Skinner fits right into my mental stereotype of someone who wants empathetic sharing at evening meetings in conference rooms to create a compromise report that actual decision makers ignore. Very "Ashland." I recognize this is totally unfair--which is my point.
Recommendation: surprise me with something in the first impression so I can envision her in the pigeon hole of a 2nd Congressional District decision maker and policy warrior.
3. Be memorable as an alternative to the incumbent's weakness. As this blog has reported, Greg Walden's great vulnerability is that he told voters he wanted inexpensive health care with wider access, yet the bill that came out of his committee reduces health care access to tens of thousands of his constituents. He is looks and acts embarrassed as he tries to sell an implausible story that spending billions less money actually means more health care. It speaks well for his ethics that he is uncomfortable with having badly misled his constituents, which he is dealing with by hiding out looking terribly busy with rodeos and dam visits and other local matters, while ignoring the giant sick elephant in the room, the Trumpcare elephant he helped create.
Voters are barely getting to understand Trumpcare, but they already hate it, but not one voter in a thousand can summarize accurately the Klamath Basin restoration project--and many of the ones who are able actually to summarize it oppose it, which is why it went nowhere. McLeod-Skinner's case against Walden is 180 degrees misdirected. She has led off with something few people understand (Klamath restoration) instead of something many people care about (broken promise of health access.) Worse, she is criticizing him for not doing enough hiding out with small-ball local distractions, when in fact his real vulnerability is Trumpcare, the elephant in the room.
Recommendation: Criticize Walden for what he did wrong that is unpopular, not for his greatest political virtue, his visible constituent service in the District.
4. Lead with something simple and clear and true. It is objectively true that Trumpcare was written in large part in his committee. It is objectively true that Trumpcare is complicated and unpopular, being criticized by Republicans and Democrats both. It is objectively true that tens of thousands of Oregonians will lose health insurance and Medicaid access, as attested to by the CBO. It is objectively true that Walden assured people constantly that he would protect people with pre-existing conditions and continue healthcare access to the working poor, and there are lots of Republicans officeholders who are loudly saying Trumpcare does neither.
Therefore, a candidate has the opportunity to lead with a simple, clear, true reason to replace Walden: that he wrote and voted for a bill that hurts Oregonians after having promised to do the opposite.
Recommendation: be memorable as the candidate who calls Walden on his vulnerable spot, his authorship and support of Trumpcare.
What might be a memorable first impression? This message: s "Jamie McLeod announced her candidacy denouncing Walden for writing Trumpcare, an expensive sellout to the insurance industry that breaks his promise to Oregonians."
That is about as much as a voter can remember: name, link Walden to unpopular Trumpcare, unpopular health insurance companies, and broken promises by politicians. Of course there are other issues, ones the candidate can discuss one-on-one with people at fundraising receptions. But 98% of the people will cast their vote based on a couple of simple impressions of who the candidate is and what they represent. "Jamie McLeod, a Democrat, denouncing Walden for writing Trumpcare, an expensive sellout to the insurance industry, just like a typical congressman" is about what most people will know.
Bad-Trumpcare, greedy-insurance-companies, and congressmen-who-lie are all ideas that are well embedded in the public mind. A candidate does not need to teach that. It is already taught and understood. Go with that flow. The key for a candidate is to link their own name to the combination of those bad things. Repeat. Repeat again.
6 comments:
Ouch! Yes, anyone challenging Walden will need to be media savvy. This is not senior class president time.
As we move, sooner than we would like, to the next elections candidates will be coming early out to try to gain an advantage. The strategy is to be out building name recognition as long as possible. Walden's advantage as a acceptable incumbent to a majority (70%) in the district is daunting. A Democrat needs to stake out Bernie territory and ratchet up the energy, motivating more participation from those on the sidelines. Otherwise an independent could divide the Progressive vote.
A Democrat, west of the mountains "CAN NOT be elected in District2. That is a given. A candidate like Dave Ward from Harney Co. is the type of person who could beat Walden. If he ran as an Independent he could avoid a costly primary with Walden AND be shown to be rather non-partisan. He is the only type of person who could depose Walden. He is ex-military, law enforcement with a brain and a heart AND the ability to articular his positions.
I have no visions of a Democrat in this position, just someone a step up from Walden.....Independent or Republican is the only real choice.
Chances are slim of unseating Walden especially since she is a l_____n
Dist 2 is conservative since a rep should support the views of the majority of their constituents we have no chance
Dear “j”, thanks for commenting.
A great many people in the District are beneficiaries of expanded Medicaid under the ACA. Maybe they will vote their party, but the Good Old Greg Walden of five years ago is gone. He got ambition. He is good at fundraising. He looks and sounds pleasant. But we would not be re-electing the guy we had gotten used to. He is a GOP caucus leader and represents the group, not his District.
Post a Comment