Trump Military Parade: A close look at the media

Donald Trump informed his top military people that he wanted a big military parade on Pennsylvania Avenue, probably on Veterans Day.

He liked what he experienced in France.  He notices what Kim Jong-un does in North Korea.  He wants a parade to call his own.

The media understands something Trump does not.  This is a very bad idea for Trump.

Washington Post

For two years Trump has regularly and consistently out played the media.  He understood the media's needs and the public mood better than did the media. It made him president. But Trump's bigger-than-life grandiosity has betrayed him.  

On February 7 Donald Trump made a formal request to General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to investigate and plan a military parade.  

The request came down from Trump, not up from the military.  

The mainstream media love the story.  The Washington Post, NY Times, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC feature the story prominently.  They have photos of military parades, including the one in France on Bastille Day, that Trump attended and highly praised.

CBS News has the story near the top. ABC News has it the top story, again with photos.  NBC News introduces the story with a criticism.  Their headline reads "Senator: Trump's military parade 'a fantastic waste of money'".

Trump looks like a mixture of silly and dangerous.  He is either a silly grandstander, or he is growing into a dictator want-to-be. The point gotten to quickly in the mainstream media is that grand military parades are rare in America they have taken place after wars are completed.  They are celebrations, not show-off threats.  They honor the military, not the politician.

NBC News

They are associated with authoritarian dictatorships and grand personalities, not a democratic republic. (Yes, military parades are an annual event in France, on Bastille Day, because France is France, and tradition is tradition.  It doesn't count.) 

Foreign strong men have military parades.  The most frequent images in the American mind are historical, of goose stepping Nazis from the 1930s.  When they happen now, they are done by our threats and enemies: North Korea. The Soviet Union and now Russia. China.  Americans don't think they look grand.  We think they look bellicose.

Trump is bringing himself down to Kim Jong-un's level.  The Trump mistake is that he is doing me-too with a man who is a subject of mockery. Movies mock him. Trump insults and calls him fat.  Trump brags of the size of nuclear buttons. .

Now Trump wants to copy him and out-do him.

The topic is nearly invisible in the pro-Trump media system.  They are protecting Trump from himself.  They understand the optics.

Hannity Mocks North Korea

Trump's media allies are generally ignoring the story.  Fox News has a tiny story, available only by using the Search function, and every other source ignores it all together.  Nothing in Breitbart.  Nothing on the Limbaugh website.  

Nothing on the Hannity website.  The Weekly Standard and National Review, which early on were never-Trump, but who have been pulled into the system, both ignore the topic.

Sean Hannity has a story on military parades.  It  mocks Kim Jong-un for having one.  Hannity knows it looks silly to Americans.

Apparently Trump does not.

Revolt against the 1960's

Make America Great Again.  When was it great?  Pre 1960s.   

Before civll rights.  Before hippies.

That is why evangelical Christians' support Trump.  Trump is the counter revolution.

America is still fighting the two cultural revolutions that happened in the 1960's. In the 1960's open legal segregation and expressions of racial prejudice became illegal.  The end of "Whites Only" signs did not end racial prejudice. 

Hillary Clinton, 1969

It did move prejudice slightly underground. 

I saw white backlash firsthand in Boston in 1974.  It wasn't OK in white, ethnic Boston to say "N-----".  That would be prejudiced, but white neighborhoods didn't want black school children going to school in them, and whites rioted, boycotted schools, and sent their children to white private schools rather than have their kids go to school with blacks.

The 1960 saw the emergence of the counter-culture.  It was a revolt against traditions and authority.   Long hair.  Peace.  Sexual revolution.  Women's rights. Black power.  Drugs. Revolt against authority. 

There were protests on campuses.  Students criticized the curriculum.  They asserted power.  They demanded the right to speak at graduation.   Hillary Clinton was the first woman in the history of Wellesley to speak.  She was voted by her classmates to do the speech.

I was at Harvard then.  I saw no sign of Wall Street recruiting graduates.  

One of the conundrums of the Trump phenomenon is the strong support evangelical Christians voters give Donald Trump.  

How can they support him of all people?

Some answers become apparent in an improbable book, one written by a Washington Times editor and a political correspondent for the Christian Broadcast Network, a book that pieces out of Trump's biography presumed documentation of Trump's deeply authentic Christianity.  Trump nominated Neal Gorsuch, a triumph for evangelicals opposed to abortion on religious grounds, and a milestone in the reversal of Roe vs. Wade.  Gorsuch on the Supreme Court is proof that Trump is attempting to "live out his faith in deeds."

The authors define Christian not as a matter of faith, salvation, or spiritual connection, but as a matter of cultural norms and political policy.  They write:

Click: Amazon.

 "Trump's view of America benefits evangelicals immensely.  His traditional views translate into traditional policies more in line with a pre-1960s America that comports itself more in line with biblical Christianity than the watered-down Christianity of today."

Amazon's summary:  "The book reveals how he has surrounded himself with believers who think he is the one guiding future who can return us to the traditional values--hard work, discipline, duty, respect, and faith, that have long been the foundation of American life, and truly make America great again in all ways."   

Cultural conservatives respond to the moral values of respect for authority and the sanctity of cultural symbols.  Conservatives saw Obama as failing to respect those symbols.  He was criticized for not wearing a flag pin, although he did.  He was criticized for not being Christian, although he is.  I received emails showing Obama with his feet on a foot stool; how dare he disrespect the White House.  And, of course, he was black.

Trump's attack on the NFL and on Colin Kaepernick is perfect cultural symbolism for Trump.  Trump represents "Christianity" defined as a return to pre-civil rights, pre 1960s respect for authority and national symbols.  Trump defines the national anthem as sacred, he criticizes the players for offending the authority of their employers, he criticizes a black man, and he criticizes a black man with a 60's style afro showing pride and defiance of white police power.  

A perfect opponent for Trump

It is perfect for Trump.

The political side of evangelical Christianity is not about faith or salvation or piety or moral improvement.  The book admits that Trump is not a perfect vessel, and it doesn't matter.  Politically engaged Christianity is not about religion.  It is about politics and tradition. 

Political Christianity is an expression of the counter revolution to the 1960s.

Candidate First Impressions

Super Bowl Commercials are a window into political campaigns.

The hardest things to notice are right before our eyes.  We take things for granted when they are openly obvious.  Having failed to discover them, we also fail to notice their importance.

Click: 60 Seconds.

Watching Super Bowl ads I noticed something.  The ads don't force the audience to "figure out" who the characters are.  The adults at a soccer game look like, dress like, acts like a "soccer mom" and "soccer dad."  We saw a half second of soccer field, then the actors, and we "got it." 

We think we know who they are. 

We see a teen age boy.  One quick glance at this boy and room and we think we know the situation.  White, middle class to prosperous, suburban, own room, nice laptop, presumably well behaved, non-criminal, semi-tidy.   We take all that in, instantly, without particularly noticing it.  

We cannot help but "profile."

Another ad will show us a single woman in her 20's--who will need a dating app.  Another will show us a gray haired man in his late 60s, who we will learn needs something for heart arrhythmia. 

We "get it" with these characters, having seen them for an instant..  We fill in the backstory.  Things make sense.

Candidates for political office are misled by their own direct experience.  They are in a cocoon of mental inner space, of family and friends, and people who care about politics and issues.  That direct candidate experience is real--but it is very different from the experience of the people whose votes they need.  That difference can lead them to shape a campaign based on the wrong things.  

They think the details matter, when in fact the appearance and tone matter.  They are busy shaping a white paper of policy choices when they should be thinking about how the Super Bowl advertisers do it.  Shape an persona and back story that can be understood at a glance.  And if you don't do it, your opponent will do it for you.

Most voters have little ability or willingness to learn much.  Voters will create mental archetypes of the various candidates.   Smart woman doctor.  Young man on the go.  Ashland liberal. Corporate country club guy.

They will use mental shortcuts.  "Is he or she a Democrat or a Republican" is a dispositive mental shortcut for the general election.

In a contested primary people will look, get a first impression, and jump to conclusions.  It seems so unfair.  George Washington served good whisky to win votes.

Glance again at the photo of the three soccer parents.  We assume-guess-profile that they are middle class. They could have arrived in a Bentley, but we assume not. Somehow, we know they aren't Bentley drivers and we fill in that they arrived in a family sedan or SUV.  If we were going to learn they were coal miners in West Virginia something would have been different in the costuming. We don't know their occupations, but whatever it is, they aren't coal miners.  We work off of clues and make assumptions.

I have been writing about contested Democratic primary elections--a state senate district in mostly urban southern Oregon, and a congressional district in a large rural part of Oregon.  In primaries voters do not have the shorthand of voting based on party.  They will have to pick someone based on first and second impressions and quick assumptions about what kind of person the candidate "must be."  They will profile.  

Politically involved people will know a little something and their family and friends will ask, "What do you know about _____?"  They will give a five or ten word answer, maybe. 

The profile will be about who you are and whose side you are on.

Dow Down 666. Democrats should not celebrate.

Trump is taking credit for economic success.   

Message to Democrats:  Don't screw this up.  Cheer for the home team.

I have read on Facebook postings and elsewhere Democratic partisans taking comfort and joy in the 1000 point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  

That is a mistake.

Trump did well.  Obama did better.

Take a moment and reflect.   Obama's winning message was hope and change.  He wasn't the messenger of despair.  In 2008 he offered hope for managing and reversing the unfolding economic collapse; in 2012 he was the guy who saved the Ohio car industry, over Republican objections. (Obama won bellwether Ohio twice.)  

As the charts on this page demonstrate, the stock market--and underlying economy--was going up under Obama.  It has kept going up under Trump.  Democrats can justifiably associate themselves with a strong economy.  Trump is claiming it for himself but Democrats have something wonderful to hold on to: actual facts.

Last five years.  The economy continued its recovery.

In the face of Trump's crowing and claiming credit, it is tempting for Democrats to hope he gets a pie in the face. Resist the temptation.

If the economy falters, it isn't Trump alone who suffers, it is America who suffers.

Democrats should cheer for victory for the home team. 

Voters will notice if Democrats are cheering for us to lose.  They won't like it.

If, in fact there is some great setback in the market or the economy, is there any question whatsoever that Trump would say, "Yikes, I screwed up.  I shouldn't have emphasized "clean coal" over wind and solar.  My bad."   Of course not.  He will blame the problem on Obama.  Even if the proximate cause of an economic setback is something unquestionably connected to Trump, e.g. a trade war with China, or a stupid tragic blunder with North Korea, Trump will blame Obama. 

Down 1000 points this week.  Don't cheer.

Hoping for failure is a loser four ways.  It bucks the long term trend of economic growth, it associates Democrats with failure, it is a direct contradiction to the Democratic message of positive government for positive change, and it is a political loser.  People vote in hope things will be better.

Trump has undone regulation on banks loans and consumer protections, and bank investors seem happy.  The meltdown was nine years ago.  People forget. Financial risk-taking is going up. It may well work out, and some people and institutions will prosper--until it doesn't. Things could go well for a while. Then, not.  When big banks fail, they bring others down with them.

People forget.

There is safe harbor messaging for Democrats.  Cheer the success and warn of the risks.  

Claim the upside.  Trump is doing it and so should Democrats.  Warn that Trump is rolling the dice with massive de-regulation. This is a narrative that is both true and credible on its face.   Trump has a history of taking risks and using leverage.  Trump's very visible behavior regarding North Korea is one of inviting brinksmanship and risk.  Democrats can label and brand Trump as a dangerous risk-taker.  It should be an easy "sell."

Banks unleashed again.  What could go wrong?

This can be win-win for Democrats.  Say that Democrats repaired the system and Trump is enjoying the fruits of their labor, and if we go into a recession or there is some other market or financial crisis, that Trump owns that.  He took risks and bungled it.

Or, it can be lose-lose for Democrats.   Democrats can be visibly cheering for failure, look to the public like depressing spoil-sports and nay-sayers, and then, having associated themselves with failure, be proven right and get blamed for problems when they come.

Democrats should choose to win.

Field Report: A State Senator Alan DeBoer's Morning

The Governor was in town.  Speaking and getting media attention.

Watching.  Paying attention.

State Senator Alan DeBoer was there, too.     Listening.  Learning.   

He spent a long morning learning about High School Career and Technical Education.   Is there a political market for a quiet, conscientious, mellow, cordial Republican?

I was there up close for 90 minutes of the events Thursday morning. Big speech for the Governor, proclamations, meet-and-greet. That all started at 9:30 a.m. Nice photo opportunities.  

Kate Brown has raised her game.  Her speech had sparkle and enthusiasm.  She articulated the unifying progressive mission of prosperity, security, and opportunity.  

Mail Tribune.  All about Kate Brown.

America can be great for all of us, she said.   There is room for everyone to pursue happiness. Governments are here to enable all of us to have a shot at prosperity and happiness, and it can happen in one generation if we get training, work hard, and play by the rules.  You can do this, she told the students.

It was a non-political event, but she got her political reward.  The Mail Tribune had two photos on page one.  There was a 500 word story.  

State Senator Alan DeBoer also handled it well.  Responsibly.   He was largely uncredited.  

Kate Brown mentioned him three times, but DeBoer's name wasn't mentioned in the Tribune story.  He was there, working, but on the sidelines of attention.  

DeBoer was doing the hard, silent, often uncredited work of being a conscientious legislator.  We are all better off if legislators listen and learn before they create laws, and have facts and nuance rather than lobbyist talking points to guide them.  It seems fair to mention it and credit him, and I do.

His day started early, at 7:30 a.m.

Both Brown and DeBoer attended a long meeting of educators, employers, and state officials. Then, after the big speech, they toured facilities.  It lasted until nearly noon. 

DeBoer has not yet announced whether he will run for re-election. His time and work on Thursday suggest he is committed to the job. He may run from a sense of duty.  

Democrats will find DeBoer an unconventional--and formidable--Republican candidate.   I sat beside him during the speech and the questions that followed.  He applauded Kate Brown like a Democrat--or perhaps like a very polite, conscientious, not particularly partisan Republican.  He applauded her answer saying the Siskiyou National Monument contained valuable diversity of species and needed full protection.  He applauded her answer regarding the contribution of DACA designees to the American culture and economy.

Between Meetings.

Did he intend to applaud?  Well, he was "on the record" in the sense that he was in straight camera shot of multiple TV cameras, and it would have been an opportunity to make distinctions and objections, had he felt the need.  He applauded.

The current national brand of Republicans desire conflict to define political turf and positioning.  Land Monuments reduce land for potential mining, so oppose them. Children brought here illegally are here illegally, and what part of "illegal" is unclear?; deport them.  

DeBoer handles this differently. He doesn't appear to define himself in opposition to progressive Democrats, nor to taxes, nor to public services. He seems to want to be part of a legislature that governs reasonably.   He wants to keep Democrats from getting a 3/5 majority in the Senate, a rule that puts some constraints on the majority party.

If he runs, DeBoer may confound the Democratic wave predicted for 2018.  He breaks the GOP mold. DeBoer is no Trump. He may not energize Democrats to oppose him.  On the other hand, he has been around for years.  Surely, not everyone had a great experience at his car dealerships.  He lost a re-election bid for Ashland mayor.

He may not run for re-election.  I think he dislikes being misunderstood and criticized bitterly.  People in his district, and throughout the state, will question his votes, his motives, his judgement.  Some are already publishing articles in his hometown newspaper saying he sold out to his campaign donors, that he is a toady for his GOP caucus, that he flip flops.  

I suspect he wants to be understood as a man doing his best and working hard at it.  His friends will think that of him, and voice it.   People who disagree with him on issues will assume his intentions are bad and his motives impure, and will say so repeatedly.  No one likes that.  He may have a "Plan B."  Jessica Gomez appears to be gearing up for something.  She is a businesswoman in technology.  Fresh blood.  

He won't get much credit for spending 5 hours learning about technical education. Being a legislator is thankless.  But he will have hell to pay from people who disagree with his vote on Measure 101 and a million other things, some real, some imagined, some invented. What a drag.

Field Report: Governor Kate Brown in Medford

A Close Look: Governor Kate Brown does an Education event.

Kate Brown came to Medford as Oregon's governor, not as a candidate to be Oregon's governor.

The distinction between incumbent and candidate is often lost on people. This was a taxpayer-funded trip.  Kate Brown acted like a governor, not a candidate.

I just sat down on the floor next to the students

Observation 1.  The trip was not announced to the general public in advance.  It was a school event, not a "public" event.  I discovered she would be in town through a coincidental mention of it by someone who had happened to have heard something second hand.

There was no notice given to a wider circle of politically engaged public.  No notice to long time friends of Kate, not to Democrats, not to donors, not to the taxpaying public generally.  There was no pro-or-con political activity outside the event.  My having heard she was to be in town, the day before the event I used Google to find the Governor's office and her scheduling person. I got the following email: 

'Thank you for your patience as I worked to ascertain the best way to answer your question related to the Governor’s schedule in Medford tomorrow. While none of the items on her schedule are truly “public”, I’ve been asked to refer you to the Governor’s campaign staff, copied on this email."

I received an email later in the day from the campaign, saying that they were deluged by emails and couldn't respond.

Conclusion:  The "public" was not invited or welcome.

Observation 2. No one stopped me when I just showed up.

I tried to look like a responsible citizen.  I wore slacks and a blue blazer. The school gave me Visitor Pass without question.  I walked right into the auditorium and sat down along with students on the gym floor, right in front.  

Speech from the raised platform

The governor and school superintendent immediately recognized me, waved, and walked me over to a small bank of chairs to the side of the governor's dias, a place reserved for School Board members, state legislators and a couple of other dignitaries.  (I am a member of the Medford Schools Foundation Trustees, so arguably a "school person", but neither of them would know that.) Mostly I think an older guy sitting on the floor looked out of place or pathetic.

Observation 3.  Kate Brown gave a excellent speech.  She gave the pitch perfect progressive message, focusing on prosperity and opportunity.  Not grievance.

She began with a story of her own family, one that a generation ago had a dedication to "education, education, education" which allowed Kate to grow up in a household without fear of want.  "I was raised to believe that I could accomplish anything I set my mind to, all because my grandmother put my family on a path out of poverty over 80 years ago.  If you work hard and play by the rules you will have a better life for yourself and your children."

Fielding questions

Then she spoke to a broader political issue, the one this blog considers the strongest and most unifying for progressive politicians.  "As your governor, my goal is to increase economic prosperity, and to make sure that that economic prosperity is inclusive, that it touches every single community in every single corner of our state.  That everyone in our state--everyone--has a fair shot at building a better life for yourself and for your children. And to achieve this goal we have to go back to my grandmother's mantra: Education. Education. Education."

There.  She said it, a brief summary of the progressive message this blog has urged be the centerpiece of political messaging: A goal of prosperity and security for yourself and your family, by assuring everyone a opportunity to make the most of themselves. And the ladder for personal and national prosperity is gaining education and skills needed in the changing world.

After the short speech she answered questions from the students.  She left the dias and got right up close for the questions.  She moved around.  She nodded and looked empathetic.

Observation 4.  Kate Brown handled the handshaking, meet-and-greet elements with grace and enthusiasm.  As is typical after a speech of this kind, the politician is greeted by people wanting a brief word.  Brown handled this perfectly.   She smiled warmly.  She gave "good handshake," i.e. firm, leaning in.   (She is better at this than a dozen presidential candidates, indeed every one other than Chris Christy.  She is warmer.  Her eyes crinkle when she smiles.  She looks at the person. She appears to be thrilled to meet people.)   The photos give a sense of it.

Good Handshake

Observation 5.  More tomorrow.  State Senator Alan DeBoer was at the event. He handled this very well.  DeBoer was there for 90 minutes that I saw myself.  He was a witness, not the speaker.  In theater terms, he was on stage as a named character, but without spoken lines. Kate was the center of attention.  He was graceful and classy about the event.  That will be the subject of tomorrow's blog.  

Below:  Photos:

Engagement

Good Empathy

Banter with Students

Meeting with RCC President Kemper-Pelle

Congressional Straw Poll Results

Forum attendees picked Jamie McLeod-Skinner

It is a validation of her campaign.  It is a wake-up call for her rivals.  It is an opportunity for one or more of them to re-think the race and their messages.

Six Candidates

Jackson County Democrats hosted two forums. The audiences watched and listened for nearly two hours.  They all had equal time.  They answered the same questions.  The each had their shot to stand out.

Some 450 people attended. Some 325 people filled out ballots.   There was a clear leader in the preferences among the attendees who cast votes. The balloting took place at the end of each forum.  People picked their first, second, and third choices.

First Place Votes:

Jamie McLeod-Skinner---  54% 

Jim Crary --------------------   16%. 

Tim White  -------------------- 12%.

Jennifer Neahring  --------  10.5%.

Eric Burnette  ---------------  5%

Michael Byrne  -------------- 3%

Second Preference.  The preference straw poll showed Jim Crary and Jennifer Neahring approximately tied as the number two choice after the person chose someone else for first place, with some 23% of the votes cast.  Jamie McLeod-Skinner got 21% of those 2nd place votes, cast by people who had picked someone else first.

Jamie McLeod-Skinner

These results are not a random sample of District voters.  These were preferences cast by a generally older audience of activist Democrats, i.e. people interested enough in this election to sit through a two hour event, and cast a vote.  Many people went to the event as a partisan for one of the candidates, wearing campaign buttons, which is why the second place votes are suggestive, because it shows who those attendees likely found attractive or acceptable, after their own favored candidate.

Jamie McLeod-Skinner got 75% of combined first and second place votes.  Of combined first and second place votes Jim Crary got 39%, Jennifer Neahring got 33%, and Tim White got 28%.

Third Preference.   All of the candidates who failed to be first or second choices gained substantially as a third choice, except Michael Byrne.  Crary, White, Neahring, and Burnette got substantial votes.

Observations:  

1.  Jamie McLeod-Skinner has Jackson County activist support.  Either people showed up liking her, or they saw her performance then liked her well enough to give her far more support than anyone else.  Either her campaign is further along--with more supporters in the room--or she performed better.

2.  Michael Byrne did not persuade this audience.  Few people voted for him for an preference.  Eric Burnette did a little better, but when people had a chance to vote for their first and second choices, then looked at Burnette for third, they chose Crary, Neahring, and White instead.  Each of them need to decide why they did not "click" with this audience.

Click here to see his campaign website

3. What might Jim Crary conclude?  He has positions on the full suite of Democratic issues, but he has a signature issue on on which he has spoken repeatedly: campaign finance reform.  His website says 97% of the problems with our politics stem from the dangerous influence of money in our political system. He presented that position to this audience and they found it acceptable.  He got first, second, and third place votes. But the audience heard it and didn't find it dispositive. Apparently a great many of the 325 voters do not consider it a knockout, centerpiece issue.  

On January 30, Crary wrote on his campaign website  "My signature issue is campaign finance reform, which is admittedly about as unsexy an issue as I could dredge up."  He went on to quote the Einstein saying that insanity is doing more of the same thing and expecting a different result.  Crary has been talking about campaign finance for 3 years.  What is Einstein telling Crary?  Crary needs to decide if this message is simply the one he wants to share, or if this message is the one he expects to use to win.

4. Jennifer Neahring can conclude she was credible.  She might conclude that a Medford and Ashland audience, filled with friends and supporters of local candidates McLeod-Skinner and Crary, were a place for her to expose herself, but that she was going never likely to win a straw poll so early in her campaign.

But there is a warning for her: she did not outshine Tim White, who is also a newcomer candidate from out of town. She did not startle people with her expertise in health care and change their minds.  Like Crary, she did not deliver a knockout punch.  She was in the pack but not at the front of the pack.   She has expertise, but her message did not stand out, at least not as she framed it at those forums, apparently.

5.  Tim White, too, was credible.  He impressed some people, getting a few more first place votes that Neahring, but was in the pack. Like Neahring, he has had a career marked by achievement and excellence.  Neither of them succeeded by being "pretty good." They are accustomed to being distinguished, outstanding.  This is an opportunity for Tim White to decide to push reset--or not.  However he may have perceived the audience body language and applause, the straw poll results are numbers to consider. People saw and heard him--and saw and heard McLeod-Skinner and Crary, and chose them, and, worse, picked Crary and Neahring ahead of him for second place. 

Tim White appears to me to be the candidate most open to reacting to market signals and audience response. The retired Chrysler executive knows full well it is easier to sell cars people actually want. (Crary makes a sincere virtue of the opposite, telling people what he thinks they need to hear about campaign finance, even though he considers the message "unsexy.")  White's campaign focuses on economic issues,not identity or grievance: "Employment, Economic Opportunity, Inequality of Wealth and Income."  Tim White has credibility to talk about those from the point of view of a winner and informed observer, not a victim. There is a market within Democrats for a critic of corporate power and inequality.  White needs to figure out how to look like a truth teller and good guy, not part of the malefactor group he criticizes..

5.  Jamie McLeod-Skinner got affirmation that an activist Democratic audience finds her personally appealing.  This is probably a primary election strength.  Since all the candidates express essentially the same general political positions on the various issues, the forums were an affirmation that a lot of people generally liked how she presented herself, her biography, her personality, her identity.  (I referred to her as a "cowgirl" in earlier blog and got objection by readers who apparently consider this an insult.  It is a compliment.)

McLeod-Skinner needs to consider what was it that caused the win?  Had she pre-won the straw poll with a room full of supporters?  Did the audience like her story of courage coming out as homosexual?  Did she frame the issues differently than did the others, and did that help? Or hurt?  

Conclusion.  My own sense is that none of the candidates showed any meaningful difference among them, either in policies or in the clarity of their criticism against Walden.  (I know that this must seem foolish and uninformed to them.  Perhaps they wonder, "Cannot Sage see how different and unique and special I was?"  I didn't particularly see it, no.  Different biographies but the same politics.  Same tone. )

There is an opportunity here for one or more of the candidates:  distinguish yourself from one another on policy, if you choose to.  Democrats are picking which of you will go up against Walden.  If, by election day candidates all seem very alike on policies, then voters will pick the female doctor, or the retired Chrysler guy, or the tough cowgirl, or the retired marine regulator guy, or the former lawyer guy who ran last time, or the stone mason guy.

There is an opportunity to stake out bold policy positions.

There is mental shelf space for people to know about two or three more things about each candidate beyond biography by the time they vote.  The candidates can fill in those blanks by what they choose to do now.


Tabulated Results, Ashland:



Tabulated Results, Medford: