Campaign Videos: Today, Athena Goldberg

Athena Goldberg knows who her friends are.

Goldberg: Collecting a coalition

She is a member of the tribe of politically engaged, women, unions, tenants, Democrats, liberals, pro-DACA, anti-racist, progressive activists.

She is with them.

Athena Goldberg has a web page and a Facebook page.  The web page is just a token space, giving a brief biography, plus links to help people contact her campaign to donate or volunteer.  

https://www.athenagoldberg.com

Her real web presence in in her Facebook page, Click: Facebook.  It is here that she takes positions, allying herself with progressive activist groups and causes.

Her sole video is pinned to the top of the Facebook page. The video documents one big message, that she is with them.  Video: Click Here. There isn't one word of policy.  Policy is inferred by her association.

That is the pattern of the Goldberg campaign.  Neither her web page nor her Facebook pages spell out policy in any detail  They simply say whose side she is on--and that is the side of the traditional Democratic/progressive interest groups and positions.  She adds her voice.

Video viewed 9,300 times 

The video is dead simple and any ten year old with access to an i-pad could have produced it or a better one in a few minutes using free movie-making software. It is soundless.  It strings together bright, colorful photos: Goldberg at the woman's march in Medford, close-up of a sign with her name, Athena with a cute young girl, a smiling old man with an Goldberg button, the "I'm with her" sign, Goldberg being interviewed by a TV reporter, Goldberg hugging her husband, a scene of the Woman's march with a sea of pink hats.

Yet it is effective. It positions Goldberg the sole woman in the center of that vast body of Democratic voters who--it is assumed--will vote their gender--or at least vote for the person who shares their views on gender issues.  There she is, visible in the center of it.

She is letting people know she is like them and with them.  Yesterday, for some reason I don't understand, I kept getting an Calendar notice that informed me that Goldberg would be participating in a 5k and 10 mile fun run. Runners are a tribe. They get together, run together, know each other, and share stories of race times and knee injuries.

Her Facebook page shows photos of a house party at the home of a career social worker.  

Tight with the liberal/progressive tribe. Goldberg's Facebook posts work through the common positions of people who dislike Trump and Fox News, i.e. Democratic voters. She condemns Wells Fargo for having created fraudulent accounts, she supports the Democratic plan on  "Cap and Invest" on energy, she condemns high priced drugs and drug companies, she supports net neutrality. No surprises. You don't like bank fraud?  Neither does she.

She solicits union support and says she is one of them.  She is the candidate most likely to get union endorsement and financial support:

       "I grew up in a union house. Without the nurses union fighting for her, my mom wouldn't have been able to put food on our table.

       Our firefighters, police officers, and nurses need their unions to ensure they can continue their work. If they are able to succeed, then so will the rest of us."

She allies herself with the rising activity of tenants groups, people newly visible and active: 

     "The Oregon Legislature needs to pass a Tenants Bill of Rights to guarantee renters fair leasing contracts and to prevent them from being evicted from their homes without cause.  

     An Oregon family should never be kicked out of their home because of the unreasonable whims of their landlord."

House Party: Animated. Engaging. 

Athena Goldberg is a people person, not a policy person.  Her web page has a one sentence description of her positions, and then a button.  When a person clicks on the button, instead of getting detail, the reader is brought back to her biography.  Her position statements are one sentence long!  

But no matter.  The people she allies herself with have detailed positions.  If she is elected she will work with them. 

Being a people person may be enough.  She has charisma.  She is likable.  I watched he closely at a house party.  Her knowledge of issues was shallow--she seemed quite unaware of how the decennial census worked--but it did not seem to matter. She communicated that she liked and cared about the people in the room and that she was on their side.

Can she win with a strategy of likability and affiliation?  It may be the only winning strategy.  An ongoing theme of this blog is that what voters care about is who the candidate really is, and whether the candidate is on your side.  She is picking groups and positions with widespread appeal in a Democratic primary.

Campaign videos. Today, Julian Bell

What the campaigns intend to say is only part of the story. More interesting is what videos reveal.

There are four Democratic candidates for the position.  Julian Bell, Athena Goldberg, Jeff Golden, Kevin Stine. Bell, Goldberg, and Stine have campaign videos. Golden has an archive from his TV show.

Their videos reveal something about the character and political assumptions of each candidate.  Today we will look at Julian Bell, with the others to follow in alphabetical order.

Click Here: Introduction Video

Julian Bell

Julian Bell is a physician in Ashland. His first video was an introduction. Bell spends little time describing himself, his history, political values. He says, "I'm a doctor, I work in an intensive care unit." and then he bangs right into his motivation.  He has a political position to advance:  "I'm running for office to build an all-inclusive, government run, not-for-profit health insurance system--a single-payer health insurance system for Oregon. It's the only rational thing to do for our state. This will contain health insurance costs and provide insurance for everybody in our state."   

This first video is home-made and primitive.  It is the least expensive possible way to do a campaign video.  He sat in front of his computer, pushed a button on some video program that came pre-loaded, and then read a script he wrote and had placed--awkwardly--to the left of the camera eye.

No music.  No text. No graphics. No apparent editing.  

Video 2: Jordan Cove

In his second video he learned and improved. He looks directly at the camera. 

He describes his position against the Jordon Cove LNG plant and the pipeline that would go through this Senate District. He cites facts his Democratic and environmental viewers will care about--that it would be a major methane emitter, that it delivers Canadian natural gas to Asia and does little for America or southern Oregon, and that it requires eminent domain to get a pipeline route through Jackson County.   

There is a message underlying the Julian Bell campaign revealed in his campaign video, largely by what he does not do.

He does not try to sell himself as a nice guy just like you, from whom one can expect a certain behavior and political choices, because you and he have a lot in common. It isn't all about him, the person of Julian Bell. He doesn't describe his childhood, his education, his philosophy of life. He appears likable, but his videos are not about likability. They are about policy.

There is nothing soft focus.  There are no rosy views of the Table Rocks or pear blossoms. We do not see him walking across a green lawn in semi-slow motion--the way Jessica Gomez's ads portray her, floating as a dreamy fulfillment to some inchoate political wish. There is no mellow foundation of music.  It is just Bell, telling us his positions.

There is no mushy babble of pleasant political cliches. This is unusual in political ads and it deserves notice. Jessica Gomez's string of happy talk was essentially meaningless (after all, who isn't in favor of jobs, happy families, and people working together for a better world?) but in her case it projected the underlying message that she wasn't a Trump-Republican ethno-nationalist. In Julian Bell's case, his videos demonstrate he is no-nonsense and happy to take clear stands. 

In the aftermath of the Hillary/Bernie primary, voters on the left are skeptical of vague talk. It might disguise centrism or apostasy from true progressive thought, or compromise.

Julian Bell proves up with straight talk. 

He doesn't soften the edges of controversy with words like "community", or "working hand in hand", or "cooperation for the betterment of all."  Bell is communicating that he understands politics to be a matter of controversial choices. The government-run, not-for-profit healthcare system he advocates means current health insurers are going to be furious with him. OK with Bell.  He takes a stand. Stopping a pipeline will anger the Port of Coos Bay, pipeline owners, and the union laborers who hope to build it. OK with Bell. He takes a stand. 

Julian Bell's opinions on issues are essentially similar to those of his Democratic opponents, but Bell distinguishes himself in projecting a "fact based" understanding of policy and governing.  He doesn't describe pulling a coalition of people; he is making choices based on information, not wants or constituencies.   Note he did not argue that landowners didn't want a pipeline near them.  He argued that the pipeline polluted everyone, and that eminent domain was improper. 

Here is the link to his Facebook page:  
Julian Bell for State Senate

Preview for tomorrow:  Athena Goldberg and a very different approach.

Trump: "Trade Wars are Good."

"How come everybody's always picking on me?"  

Trump is Charlie Brown in that song from the 1950's.

Americans knew Trump was a bad boy, and that was part of his appeal.  Trump voiced something a great many people felt: They personally were being picked on and America was being picked on.  

Trump was going to hit back, on behalf of America and Americans like them.  

Coasters

Baby boomer readers know the song by The Coasters.  It was a doc-wop rock song about a teen age bad boy who wrote on the wall, smoked in the gym, called the teacher "Daddy-oh" and then complained about his unfair persecution: "Why is everybody always picking on me?"  

Take 2:18  to remind yourself of the nature of late 1950's rock scene.  Rock beat. Alto sax.   Click Here: Charlie Brown

Trump had a unified message built around a theme of resentment.  As I noted yesterday, many voters felt the political left had bent over backwards to accommodate feminism, environmentalism, and affirmative action against the interests of "real" Americans like them, i.e. Christian, proud-patriotic whites, who were being unfairly burdened with the dead weight of slackers and newcomers.  A corollary of that was resentment of foreigners who Trump said didn't pull their weight at NATO, who enjoyed the pax-Americana of safe oceans, and who robbed us blind in trade policies.

We Americans considered ourselves 'good," but we elected a bad-boy bully who would do our fighting for us.  

Trump just announced a new tariff on steel and aluminum imports. We asked for this.
  
Trump says trade wars are good and we can win. He tweeted "When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win.  Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don't trade anymore--we win big.  It's easy!"

The winners in a tariff situation know they are winners:  An aluminum manufacturer in Kentucky celebrated.  It will invest $100 million in enlarged capacity and hire 300 people.  But there are more losers than winners because there are more customers of steel companies than there are steel workers.

Most of the financial media and expert opinion is dismayed.  

Financial Times: "Mr Trump has taken the most drastic option available." Click.

Wall Street Journal:  "US Allies and Consumers will pay steel tariff bill. Click.
Bloomberg:  "Toyota says Trump's Tariff's to 'Adversely Affect' Automakers. Click.
CNBC:   "No win for Wall Street or Main Street."   Click.

However, virtually alone, Fox Business accentuates the positive, quoting Wilbur Ross and saying it would add $45 to each automobile, a price worth paying, and calling it pro-jobs. Click.

This tariff is a giant reversal of long-settled GOP policy.  The GOP is traditionally the party of business. It is the party that opposes business regulations and taxes.  It is the party of free trade. It wants government out of business decisions, not picking winers and losers for political purposes.  

What in the world is Trump doing?  We are seeing the triumph of politics and democracy.  He is doing what people voted for, expressing in policy the angry resentment many people felt personally and the desire to strike out, even if it hurts a lot of people.

What is Jessica Gomez doing in the party of Donald Trump?

Her friends seem to hope she is changing it.

GOP Voters have turned their party over to Trump.  They may complain about his tweeting, and they ignore the p----y grabbing and payoffs to porn stars, but they fall in line.  Trump leads the party.

This blog received multiple comments denying the notion that Trump represents the tone of the party.  What is the truth?  There is data available.

The Gallup Presidential Approval Poll this week shows him at 85% among likely Republican voters, up from 81% in early January, down from 90% in early February. Among all voters Trump is widely unpopular, but Republican voters say they like what they see and hear from Trump.  See for yourself. Click here.

Trump thanking Walden for cutting health care.

Another way to gage support is whether incumbent Republican officeholders dare to disagree with him or put a check on his actions. They do not. 

In the privacy of their inner thoughts they may not like him but publicly, where it counts, they play along.   Out of 51 GOP US Senators only two--Bob Corker and Jeff Flake--are openly critical of Trump, and both are leaving the Senate early, realizing they would lose primary elections in their states.  Among Republican officeholders, opposing Trump is suicide.

Our own Greg Walden, who presents himself in the District as a mild-mannered moderate, is in near perfect lockstep with Trump.  Walden votes with Trump 98.5% percent of the time, at a level even more frequently than the political cast of his District would imply. Walden crossed Trump only in one instance, voting to put sanctions on Russia for interfering in the election, which Trump opposed.

A rule of thumb is that if it were a political necessity--or in the political interests--of an officeholder to oppose the leader of their party they would do so.  They aren't.  Their voters like Trump so they follow Trump.  

See for yourself. Walden Scorecard. Click Here

The Trump approach has been politically successful for the GOP.  They control every branch of government.  They have a dedicated media outlet, Fox News, with dedicated viewers. They have story: the left, with its over-educated urban types who favor multicultural diversity, bend over backwards to accommodate feminism and environmentalism and affirmative action, and they are in cahoots with the universities and the mainstream media, to water down and destroy the "real" America of good, old-fashioned, Christian, proudly-patriotic, white folks, the people who used to be secure and on top and who are now struggling and carrying the burden of slackers and newcomers.  

And they have a tone: we are angry and resentful over it, and darned tired of feeling disrespected.

A different kind of Republican. Jessica Gomez's friends and political allies are bombarding me with a different message: that Trump/Fox message is not the real Republican party, or at least not the whole party. The GOP isn't the party of Trump, they say,  of the NRA, nor of primarily evangelicals, nor of white nationalists, nor against women.

Others wrote to say her tone is that of the real Republican Party.  They say her introductory video isn't just "mere platitudes"; they are the true things Republicans believe.  Republicans want community, not division. 

The Republican incumbent State Representative currently representing half of the Senate District is standard-issue current Republican voting and talking points in this era of Trump. He has been re-elected multiple times. He hates what Trump hates. He opposes taxes, attacks public employee unions, opposes drivers licenses and tuition subsidies for the undocumented, and opposed the popular tax to enable federal matching funds to expand health care for the working poor in Oregon. 

In District:  warm words of empathy and community.

Gomez is presenting herself as the opposite of that. Maybe it is time for the pendulum to swing back toward a Republican party of Mark Hatfield, Bob Packwood, and John Dellenback.

Policy and tone are related, but different, and it would be one way for Gomez to thread that needle of being Republican enough to satisfy her party, yet unthreatening enough to get Democratic and Independent votes.

It is deceptive but it works for Walden. His formula: look and sound and talk like an easygoing empathetic moderate in the District, but vote like Trump when at the Capitol. He seems so nice voters cannot quite believe he votes even more conservatively than Ted Cruz. See for yourself. Click.

Jessica Gomez: Mushy platitudes; powerful message

Republican Senatorial candidate Jessica Gomez introduced herself to voters with a soft focus video.  

It was sweet political babble.   In this case, the tone is the policy.

Here is the video:  Click: 90 seconds.

Message one:  Gomez is defining herself as nice, a conciliator, a bridge builder.  Gomez understands that this is a Democratic leaning district.  Previous candidates who ran negative campaigns lost the election and badly tarnished their reputations.  Republicans Jim Wright and David Dotterer received withering criticism from media referees for the nasty ads produced in their name. They lost. Democrat Tonia Moro received withering criticism for her own negative ad, which blew up in her face. She, too, lost.

A non-Trump message

Gomez defines a tone that is opposite the Trump-Tea Party-Fox-talk radio tone of outrage and ethno-nationalism, a tone Republican voters actively chose in the 2016 election for president.  She is different. This is nice-guy Republicanism. 

Message two:  Gomez is running as an "independent voice."  She is running on the Republican ticket but in 90 seconds the word Republican never appears.  She is sending a message whose credibility will be tested.  Will she go to Salem and take instruction from more senior members of the Republican caucus?  The median Republican voter may will want and expect her to vote Republican policies.  

Democrats are already saying she will be pressured to vote like a Republican, and Trump has captured the GOP.  Elect Gomez and you elect Trump in disguise.  [Post revised.  I have removed all references to any Republican candidate Gomez may have.]

Kevin Stine, an astute political observer and a Democratic candidate in the race, observes that she is trying to thread a thin needle. She needs to be Republican enough to get the nomination but independent enough to get crossover Democratic votes. It is going to be hard to do.

Message three:  Gomez has an insurmountable lead, so GOP rivals should back off.   Gomez's ad was expensive and highly produced.  It demonstrates she has money and support and that her campaign is up and running and she can overwhelm any last minute "regular Republican" opposition. [Post revised. References to an opponent deleted.]

Gomez is understood in local political circles to have been a Democrat until recently, to have voted for Hillary Clinton, to be appalled by Trump's behavior toward women and language against Hispanics.  Trump is president and leader of her political party, and he triumphed by locating and exacerbating resentment of the rising power of women, of Hispanics, of educated elites, and of new industries at the expense of traditional ones--people like Jessica Gomez!  Yet she is running as a Republican and Republicans are staying loyal to Trump and his messages and policies. She is vulnerable here to a rival but her video staked her claim: I've got this.

Jessica Gomez created a messaging problem for Democrats.  A Democrat would likely win easily in an election with a Trump-style Republican. Gomez's person and tone position herself in the center of the Democratic coalition, an educated, pro-community, pro-diversity, Latina, voicing a Democratic message.  

But it also creates a messaging problem for Gomez.  She will have an authenticity problem that will be questioned both in the primary and general election. The question will haunt her: what in the world is she doing in the party of Donald Trump?   Who is she really?

Jessica Gomez, Republican.

A Republican Candidate for State Senate: Jessica Gomez

Alan DeBoer decided not to seek re-election.  Jessica Gomez, who is serving as a volunteer assistant during this session, was ready in the wings to step in.

"Community.  Come together."

Here is her introductory video:

CLICK HERE FOR THE VIDEO

The video is very professionally produced.  Twenty seven different scenes in 90 seconds. Soft dissolves between them.  Earnest male narrator.  Gentle music underlay.

The message was soothing and warm.  Jessica spoke repeatedly of community, of working together, of avoiding "finger pointing."  

She speaks of "safer neighborhoods," "community first," "community means everything to me," "working with your neighbors, your friends," "a team that works together collaborating on solutions", "benefit to all", "come together, work together" and then "community that values our diversity and our cultural differences."

It is the opposite of the Tea Party and Trump.  It is opposite of Fox News. It reverses the formula that worked for Trump and the GOP, the tone of populist anger, accusation, we-they division, and ethno-natinalism.  There is clearly a market for that tone and Trump now enjoys 85-90% support within GOP voters.  

Outrage. Click here. 

Trump accuses and condemns:  Obama is a fraud, Hillary is crooked, the media is fake, Mueller is biased, and now most recently in today's news, the FBI dropped the ball, the sheriff deputies were "cowards "and "disgusting," and people here illegally are murderous thugs.  

The archetype of that kind of thinking is in this NRA ad.  The ad runs repeatedly on Fox and it reflects a strong form of GOP media and voter outrage.  It has divided and conquered.  The GOP has won with this.  I put it here to highlight the contrast with Gomez.

Jessica Gomez is re-defining the GOP message.  The question is whether Republicans will accept it as a GOP message.

Either Republican voters will call her out as a fake Republican, a Republican in Name Only, or they will breathe a sign of relief, happy that the GOP can nominate someone sho speaks to the value of cooperation, shared institutions, and ethnic diversity..

This is an ad that Jessica Gomez's Democratic opponents could make, if they had the money to produce it.  It is a beautiful ad. It reflects Democratic values.  It reflects my values.  I like it.

Republican voters might not like it. Gomez doesn't condemn or exclude anyone. Republican voters have been accustomed to hearing outrage, and many have developed a taste for it.  

.  

Crazy Trump: guns in schools.

Democrats oppose any plan on guns proposed by Trump.  

Texas teacher

If Trump says it, it must be racist and stupid and designed to appeal to gun nuts and the Archie Bunker nativists.

Democrats do have a plan of their own.  It is to attempt to make Republicans look like foolish puppets of the NRA. More guns!  Arm teachers!  How crazy!  Teachers as warriors, hah!.  Mrs. Lorton and Mrs. Bundock and Mr. Lewis might pack heat and in a crisis confront a young man armed with an AR15.

It is a political plan, intended to win back the House, not a plan to address gun violence. 

Democrats have a token Plan B regarding violence: trust the government to pick and choose who can safely have guns. Regulate. Investigate.  Put police and FBI on suspicious people and interview them and stay on top of them. Few people trust the government to do this job well, and with good reason. There are guns everywhere, and predicting the future behavior of disturbed people is impossible. 

Dems:  "Implausible, and weird."

Democrats might win with Plan A.  Prudent Republicans are afraid of the optics of guns in schools and are echoing Democrats on this. Knute Beuhler, a Republican running against Oregon Governor Kate Brown, is positioning himself as a moderate, not a Trump-er, and he has announced that he opposes arming teachers, too.  

What if someone other than Trump made the argument?   Can a reasonable case be made? That is today's guest post, by Thad Guyer, an attorney who represents employee whistleblowers, located wherever he has his laptop computer, currently in Vietnam.

Guest Post by Thad Guyer:  

“Do Democrats love gun control more than the students?”  

This question, of course, is exactly as unfair as the claim that “gun owners love their guns more than the students”. Everybody has an opinion on solutions to school shooters. Baning future sales of assault rifles won’t stop school mayhem because a universe of alternative weapons are available. An argument that the shooter could kill only 6 students rather than 17 with a revolver is not a solution. Two cheap revolvers kills 12 students, three kills 18 students. America may hopefully someday ban assault rifles, but it will never ban shotguns or revolvers. 

Thad Guyer

I’m a Vietnam combat veteran. Instead of the 3 months infantry training, I went through a nine month specialized program in 1969. I had never handled a gun, I was 19. But gun training was a small fraction of the infantry curriculum, measured in days not weeks. Guns are uncomplicated and easy to use. Load, take off safety, aim pull trigger, reload. Truly any idiot can and does attain firearm proficiency in a very short time. Teachers who are willing can take specially designed classes, probably by the NRA, and be ready to effectively engage a shooter in short order with good marksmanship. Smart guns that police already use preclude others from firing these guns.

Police are not cowards but they are trained to act like a coward in uncontrolled shooter situations. Cops are taught to take cover, secure the scene and wait for backup before they charge into a building. But a teacher is already there under threat. The teacher knows and loves the children. It will be second nature for a trained teacher to take aim on a shooter, all of whom are also amateurs, and pull the trigger.

As an infantryman in Vietnam, the easiest and most primal thing to do was return fire. Selected trained teachers will protect themselves and the students they love without hesitation. Peter’s father, Bob Sage was a WWII veteran. I knew him. He was a Medford school system principal. Bob Sage would have run down the hallway at Roosevelt Elementary and engaged a shooter without a thought for his own safety. He would have loaded, aimed and fired. My son went to Roosevelt. I would want a trained teacher to defend him. Every reader would want that if there is a shooter in their child’s school.
School shooters are not only untrained, they are fearful and paranoid. Harris and Klebold at Columbine killed themselves when the police arrived. They made a feckless effort to dissuade police entry by firing from windows, hit no one, and then shot themselves. Suicide, not gun battles with armed counterforce is what these shooters do. They are untrained and scared when, as Trump puts it, the bullets start coming the other way. If they can flee, they do. The Texas church shooter fled as soon as a neighbor opened fire on him. These maniac shooters don’t stand their ground.

Trump has already won this argument, and will win more as red state school districts adopt this trained teacher program, as they already are. Democrats look dogmatic and ineffectual with their weak arguments in opposing trained teacher defense programs. To dismiss the NRA/Trump solution of arming selected volunteer trained teachers because we would rather use the momentum of heartbreak for gun control is pretty close to loving gun control more than students. We should get behind teacher defense programs.