The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: strategist
Analysis: Lessons For Democratic Strategists From 2014

Analysis: Lessons For Democratic Strategists From 2014

By Stuart Rothenberg,CQ Roll Call (TNS)

WASHINGTON — You could feel it from day one of this cycle. Senate Democratic strategists knew they were smarter than their Republican adversaries. They’d out-think them and out-work them.

Incumbent Democratic senators who run good campaigns rarely lose, I was reminded. Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, who had been appointed to his seat, won a tough race in 2010. So did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. And Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill did the same in 2012.

This cycle, vulnerable Democratic incumbents in red states such as Alaska, Arkansas and Louisiana had great political names and deep connections to the voters. They knew how to win, just like Democrats Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana did two years ago. (Of course, Heitkamp and Donnelly won in a presidential year, with its different dynamic.)

How many times did I hear or read that Sen. Mark Pryor was no Blanche Lincoln? That comment was meant to highlight Pryor’s political strengths, but also to throw Lincoln (who lost re-election in 2010) under the bus so party strategists didn’t have to look at why she lost and how hostile the Arkansas terrain has become for any Democrat.

“They have their own brands,” I heard repeatedly about Pryor and Sens. Mark Begich in Alaska and Mary L. Landrieu in Louisiana from Democratic operatives and journalists.

But, Bennet, Reid, and McCaskill were victorious because the GOP nominated horrible candidates against them, not because the Democratic candidates had such untouchable brands, Democratic strategists had unique insights, or party operatives knew how to win tough races.

To some Democratic strategists, their candidates weren’t only smarter and better connected to voters. Their campaigns also knew how to identify their voters and turn them out. Democrats were miles ahead of the GOP when it came to “field,” the party’s highly touted ground-game.

I can’t count the number of times I heard or read about the vaunted Democratic field operation, whether in Little Rock or the most isolated areas of Alaska. Even I came to think it might matter.

I was told, for example, Democrats were registering and would boost turnout among African-Americans in Arkansas, which would change the arithmetic in that race and improve Pryor’s prospects.

I wondered why black voters who didn’t turn out for the first African-American president in history were going to flood to the polls for Pryor, or how Pryor would do well enough with whites for the party’s field program to matter. But Democratic Senate operatives had their charts and graphs to show how Pryor could survive the midterm.

As it turned out, African-Americans constituted 12 percent of the Arkansas electorate in 2014 according to the exit poll, the same percentage they constituted in 2008 and 1 point more than they constituted in 2010. (There was no exit poll in Arkansas in 2012.)

But while Democrats did a decent job turning out black voters this year, Pryor received virtually the same percentage of white voters as Lincoln did in 2010 (31 percent) and Obama did in 2008 (30 percent). Not surprisingly, Lincoln’s 2010 statewide performance, 37 percent, wasn’t much worse than Pryor’s 2014 showing or Obama’s 2008 statewide showing (both 39 percent).

And then there was the subject of Republican polling. Democrats seemed shocked that a thinking person would give any weight to GOP polling, which, they noted quite correctly, was seriously amiss in 2012. But Republicans took steps this cycle to correct their errors, and GOP polling often was more accurate than Democratic polling during the 2010 midterms.

At various times throughout the cycle I heard observers — sometimes Democrats, sometimes Republicans, often journalists — announce prematurely one of the GOP’s top-tier Senate challengers was toast, a victim of his or her own weakness or the Democrat’s brilliant campaign.

I heard it about Alaska, where Begich allegedly had localized his race successfully and would win re-election even in a Republican wave, and about North Carolina, where Democrats had defined and destroyed challenger Thom Tillis.

And, of course, there was Arkansas, where Republican Tom Cotton was, so boring, so serious and so charisma-challenged that he couldn’t possibly beat Pryor, who understood how to campaign in the South.

Interestingly, all of this smugness wasn’t apparent on the House Democratic side. Those folks seemed more realistic about their prospects from the start, possibly because House races are more susceptible to a partisan wave and the party was already in the minority.

It will be interesting to see whether Senate Democratic strategists sound more realistic during the 2015-16 cycle than they did over the past two years, as well as how Republicans operate when they don’t have the wind at their backs and a favorable map.

Republicans would be making a mistake to think that they have all the answers and have caught up with Democrats in all aspects of campaigning.

AFP Photo/Jewel Samad

Exclusive: Jennifer Cunningham, The Cuomo Strategist That Made Gay Marriage Happen in New York, Dishes On The Win And Where Marriage Equality Goes From Here

It took a lot of heavy lifting to make gay marriage a reality for New Yorkers, a previous effort having failed as recently as 2009, and the strategist that pushed it across the finish line, Jennifer Cunningham of SKDKnickerbocker, tells The National Memo in an exclusive interview that the win this time around was thanks to a confluence of factors, the support of labor unions and the sheer passage of time not least among them.

“I think it was the perfect marriage of a public campaign that mobilized the majority of voters to support marriage coupled with a smart, strategic inside strategy,” she said on Wednesday. “There were three things going for us [compared to 2009]: One was a popular governor who was very passionate about the issue, the second was a real change in public opinion since the last time it was voted on to the point where we had a strong majority of New Yorkers who supported it, and the third thing was we had a unified and broad coalition to make sure the voices of New Yorkers who wanted change to happen were heard.”

Cunningham, who thanks to her years of widely respected lobbying and consulting work in state politics is often referred to as the most powerful woman in Albany, first became known as a prominent labor strategist, serving as political director for the 1199/SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, the most politically potent union in the state (and perhaps the entire Northeast).

She informally advised Andrew Cuomo as he positioned himself for a successful gubernatorial run last year, and it was because of her close ties to the governor that the coalition of gay rights groups fighting for marriage equality hired her this spring.

Her ties to labor didn’t hurt, either, despite the traditional divide between unions and the Democratic Party’s growing progressivism on social issues since the 1950s.

“The New York labor movement stepped up big time for this campaign. It was one of the consequential pieces of the broad coalition we wanted to bring together, which included business leaders and others from around the state. The labor movement not only endorsed the legislation, they did lobbying efforts in Albany, they held rallies, they wrote postcards, they donated phone-banks; this was much more than just a nod in favor of the legislation, it was involving their rank and file to be a key part of the effort.”

She said a critical component of the campaign was making it less about partisan politics and instead defined by a question of human rights.

“I think the key thing here is we did everything we could to humanize the issue so that voters and lawmakers were reminded that we are talking about their friends and their neighbors and their constituents and in some cases their family members. These are couples in loving, committed relationships who simply want to be free to marry the person they love. It was thrilling to be able to be part of making history.”

Hesitant to criticize President Obama’s position on the issue–he has waffled between openly backing gay marriage as a state senator in Illinois in the 1990s to rejecting it in the 2008 campaign and is now hinting that he’s moving back toward support–Cunningham praised his aggressive rejection of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, signed by Bill Clinton in 1996, which hamstrings state efforts to provide for marriage equality.

“I would say that in the midst of this debt ceiling crisis, I was really proud and impressed to see him coming out so forcefully against DOMA,” she said. “I think he is being extremely helpful by addressing this, and I think he’s been clear that marriage should be decided by the states.”

Going forward, Cunningham says the fact that young people are overwhelmingly supportive ensures continued gains.

“I think just in the passage of time, this is a movement that is going to see success, because young people will be growing up and former a larger part of the electorate than ever.”

She said there wasn’t one method to achieving marriage equality, and that a combination of approaches was needed depending on the political environment in any given state.

“I suspect that, like many of the civil rights struggles that have come before this one, there will be many vehicles — judicial, legislative, voter referendums — for helping to achieve equality. Since the circumstances in each state are different there isn’t a one-size-fits-all strategy.”

Though reluctant to say it would be a foundational issue in the next Democratic presidential primary in 2016 the way the Iraq War was in 2008, Cunningham hinted at the increasing potency of the issue, while suggesting politicians would have to be careful not to let it define their campaigns.

“Not everybody can be in front of it. I think by 2016 we will have seen advances on this issue; but [will we see] single-issue voters on this? I suspect not. I think that’s rarely the case, particularly when an economy is troubled, that’s always at the top of peoples’ minds.”

Cunningham is certain to remain in close contact with Cuomo as he continues his work in Albany, and we can be reasonably confident that if he does run for president in 2016 as many are now predicting, she will be a key player either in his official campaign apparatus or more informally as an outside advisor.

Follow National Correspondent Matt Taylor on Twitter: @matthewt_ny