"Peter, yesterday's post was a mistake. It gave Brad Hicks a big advantage. What if he takes your advice? He could win."
And
"Peter, blather on. Whatever. Your so-called advice is irrelevant. You don't understand elections. Denise Krause will win whatever Hicks does."
 |
| Photo from his website |
I also got criticism from people who said I should stop fooling myself by thinking that my advice is relevant to winning elections. "Its about party and turnout, period. Not about message." The GOP has no real principles, the argument goes, because Trump changes them on a whim. The only real GOP principle is that he drives Democrats crazy. Republicans follow along out of inertia and party loyalty. Republicans are Republicans. What matters if they vote. But they will vote Republican in any case.
That theory says that Democrats are Democrats. Trump has been a north-star pointing south. Trump wanted to be hateful and he succeeded. Democrats don't have a leader or a clear direction but are united in being infuriated by Trump. This theory says that since Oregon's Senate district number three is majority-Democrat, what Democratic candidate Denise Krause must do is let voters know she is a normal Democrat. Brad Hicks cannot help being who he is, a Republican, and he can spend all the money in the world and nothing will change either that or the vote. The vote is locked in.
In some respects, the two comments converge into a single one. Both say that brand matters. The first worries that Brad Hicks can change his brand from a current Republican into something closer to the kind of nice-guy bipartisan Republican who used to win elections in Oregon. The second comment embeds the idea that those days are gone. Republicans cannot change and they don't want to. They have become Trump-compliant.
I worked with too many Republican clients over the years to think that every Republican is a mini-Trump, and that they all share his narcissism, racism, dishonesty, misogyny, corruption, and greed. Most of my former clients still vote Republican, so they tolerate those qualities in him, but they don't share them. My advice to Hicks was to do something dramatic and visible to project a different brand from being typecast. From the outside, where I and 99 percent of other voters see campaigns, that is exactly what he is marching lockstep into.
In my view of politics, candidates have some small ability to adjust their brands beyond party -- if they choose to. They can try to do it with words, but those are mostly ineffective. If they are going to do it, it must be done with big gestures that are unmistakable, even to people barely paying attention. His brand is mostly formed and has been so for decades: He is a good looking, married, Republican man; a Chamber of Commerce CEO; and he is conspicuously very tight with the richest, most powerful businesses locally, statewide, and nationally. It is a powerful brand. His campaign is confirming that brand by where it gets its contributions.
I think Hicks has a brand problem, especially this cycle. The brand links Hicks tightly to distant, powerful elites at a time when there is bi-partisan suspicion of elite power. Trump has led Republicans to be suspicious of elite universities, elite science, elite expertise in food, medicine, diplomacy, and the Fed. Events have caused all voters to be skeptical of elites running oil companies with windfall profits, pharmaceutical companies with high drug margins, and especially technology companies with data centers.
Many people are feeling economic stress. Big, powerful, distant businesses and business elites don't come across as the allies of those people. People are skeptical of them, especially now, what with Trump's tight crony relationships with businesses and pay-to-play deals. The aura of corruption is very present. Nevertheless, Hicks appears to have chosen to ally with the business elites. He is leaning into his brand. It is consistent with his apparent values, politics, and biography.
I think he has a losing brand, especially this year and especially in this district. I may be wrong. We will see.
[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
"they tolerate those qualities in him, but they don't share them"...oof!
ReplyDeleteSure about that?
What Peter Sage's readers fail to understand that is about 1/3 of District 3 voters are Republicans, 1/3 are Democrats, and 1/3 are Independents, so both Hicks and Krause have to appeal to Independents, and not just their own party members. This is not about whose team has the most members. Independents will decide the race.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, Trump has no contact with Republicans in southern Oregon, so he doesn't tell Republicans what to do. Oregon Republicans are independent of Trump. Conversely, Democrats in southern Oregon are very much under the thumb of Tina Kotek.
Jeff Golden beat Randy Sparacino and Jessica Gomez because he was already a heavily established and well-known politician. Golden had a radio program. Denise Krause is way less-known, and an unknown commodity. She doesn't have the popularity advantage that Golden had. Brad Hicks is well-known, and he'll be even more well-known after he spends $1 million on radio commercials and street signs. Hicks will be all over the radio and TV. Brad Hicks owns the local media, they are all going to support him, and while I support Krause, this race is not going to be a cake-walk for Denise Krause. She's going to have to be aggressive against Hicks.
Anon says, "Oregon Republicans are independent of Trump." Not true. The Oregon GOP issued a "false flag" resolution about the attack on the Capitol, and Jackson County republicans issued a resolution rejecting the 2020 election results. They're all nuts.
ReplyDeleteLet me explain something to you. The Jackson County Republicans are a volunteer organization, and their leadership changes every 4 years. The Jackson County Republicans are run by a group of less than 10 people, and most of them are crackpots who don't represent the bulk of GOP voters. The people that made that proclamation rejecting the 2020 election results are long gone and long forgotten.
DeleteLet me explain something to you, Ms. Anonymous. A Republican who openly says the opposite of what those Jackson County Republicans voted can no longer be a Republican in good standing. That is why cabinet nominees and even judicial nominees are required to say, "Joe Biden was innaugerated" but refuse to say he was innaugerated because he won the election. When Christine Drazan openly says "President Trump is mistaken in saying he won the 2020 election" she would stop being a Republican Cliff Bentz, too, avoids saying it. Republican candidates need to toe the line and that is exactly what they are doing. I think it is pathetic, but I understand their dilemma. They cannot say aloud anything that is a litmus test for Trump.
ReplyDeleteThe Jackson County Democrats are now run by a small group of 20-something year old communists. Denise Krause just won the Democrat senate primary as elected by the voters, even though 25% of the Democrat precinct people chose not to endorse Krause after the election. Since Denise was elected by the people, then who cares what a few stray uninformed Democrat PCP people think? They don't speak for the "people", and neither do the Jackson County Republicans. Most of the people are there for their own egos, and to create their own fiefdoms. They don't speak for me. Do the JC Democrats speak for you?
Delete