Keep it simple, Stupid.
Politics is a simple contest between simple choices. Success depends on how the choice is framed.
Politically sophisticated readers--like many who read this blog--understand nuance and policy subtleties. This blog has argued a contrary position during the two years that it has followed closely the 2016 campaign and the presidency of Donald Trump.
Politics is big picture messaging by political performers. Republicans may well be onto a simple political message that has powerful resonance for Republicans and is divisive for Democrats, making it a perfect message for them:
Immigrants, particularly ones here illegally, are dangerous and unwelcome and voters resent enormously the notion that they are stepping in line in front of them for jobs or public benefits and that they are committing crimes while here.
 |
| Gillespie frame: clear enemy he opposes. |
There it is, oversimple and clear: Gillespie is NO to dangerous gangs. Northam is YES, well, maybe, on them.
 |
| Bad headline and photo. |
The sanctuary city message works perfectly. Gillespie's message has a clear message of racial fear and xenophobia, but it is carefully masked. He isn't denouncing dark skin per se; he is denouncing the illegal actions of dark skinned people. People who do not want to see racism need not see it.
Meanwhile, Northam is pressured from the left to avoid all talk immigration enforcement, and in the opposite direction from people who share the fear or dislike of immigration. The net result, again, is a congruent simple message, Gillespie will address illegality, Northam wont, or maybe will, who knows? Fox News puts the word "flip-flop" in the headline and then shows Northam in gesture of "a little of this, a little of that."
Meanwhile, Northam is pressured from the left to avoid all talk immigration enforcement, and in the opposite direction from people who share the fear or dislike of immigration. The net result, again, is a congruent simple message, Gillespie will address illegality, Northam wont, or maybe will, who knows? Fox News puts the word "flip-flop" in the headline and then shows Northam in gesture of "a little of this, a little of that."
The frames are miserable for the Democrat. Could the Democrat change this to a simple frame that helps the Democrat? The die may already be cast, and the revolt from the progressive left makes it difficult, and maybe impossible.
The best response may be to pivot to a frame of Reasonable vs. Unreasonable on immigration and other issues.
 |
| A better frame for Northam |
A Democrat who does not voice strong support for some set of rules looks like he or she favors no rules, thus feeding the Gillespie frame. However, a Democrat who put a stake in the ground and said the right, just, and reasonable rule is THIS, while the Gillespie rule is something extreme and ugly, affirms that the Democrat is a voice of moderation and balance, while the Republican is wrong. When the argument is over what is the right standard, then the Trump reputation for half-baked solutions works for the Democrat, and his argument fits a general narrative that Trump-Gillespie is a bull in a china shop.
The alternative frame Northam would prefer: Northam is Reasonable; Gillespie has a Trump-like crazy positions.
It may be impossible. Progressive Democrats may find any rule other than unequivocal support for immigrants simply unacceptable.
 |
| Trump is less popular than Gillespie |
A great many Americans perceive immigration as an example of the undeserving stepping in line in front of them, and the notion of people here illegally doing so is highly motivating. If Gillespie wins that would be the best and simplest take-away lesson, and Democrats will need to devise a response that both projects progressive values and which addresses that voter sentiment.
2 comments:
The Progressive and Open Borders Fringes in Virginia
The primary lesson in Virginia has already been (1) learned and (2) heeded by the Democratic candidate for Governor Ralph Northam: sanctuary cities is fatal for Democrats in swing states. Northàm already learned the primary lesson, the only question is whether he learned it too late. Thàt is the crux of the secondary lesson: can Democrats equivocate on sanctuary cities and still win. The Virginia race will help answer that question.
This is a governor race, not a plebiscite on immigration broadly, and legal immigration has not even been a topic other than both candidates supporting it. Nor is the criminal immigrant issue a dog whistle for anything other than disapproval of illegal immigration. Trump, the GOP and Gillespie all support legal immigrants and legal immigration. Northam, and Democrats from Hillary down, are trapped in a conflict of enforcing immigration law that a decisive majority favors vs. lower voter turnout by a vocal open borders minority in the Democractic base.
Against a near-united GOP on the illegal immigration issue, a fractured Democratic base will remain out of power. Illegal immigration is divisive even within the progressive movement with its predominantly white constituency. African Americans are a critical voting block that is not a "progressive" stronghold, and were not Sanders supporters.
Progressives and open border Democrats share a resentment in Virginia that Northam has decided their positions are too fringe to win. But he has to take the risk that these fringes will support him anyway given the alternative. That is now the basis for national attention on Virgina.
Yeah, kinda feels like the charisma challenged Georgia 6th...oh well...
Post a Comment