The web experiment and the national phone survey showed that the message “leveling the playing field” and “rewriting the rules” was a potential game changer for Democrats. It was dramatically stronger than an economic message that spoke of “ladders of opportunity” and “building on Obama’s accomplishments,” but it slayed Trump’s nationalist message. Getting to this message platform allowed the Democratic candidate to be more trusted on the economy, set the economic agenda, and move base voters to get engaged.
When Democrats were heard embracing the message “ladders of opportunity,” Democrats lost ground electorally and voters become less engaged.
The results were stark: 60 percent responded positively to a candidate who articulated the “level the playing field” message; 34 percent much more so. The “ladders of opportunity” message was just not compelling: 48 percent reacted positively, and only a quarter strongly.
The “level the playing field, rewrite the rules” framework was embraced by the core progressive base that formed the Rising American Electorate. A stunning 83 percent of people of color supported it. Unmarried women preferred it over the “ladders of opportunity” message by fifteen points; millennials preferred it by nineteen. It was not even a contest among the Democrats’ potential base.
The “level the playing field, rewrite the rules” message allowed Democrats to more than compete for the white working class and swing voters. It was embraced by about 60 percent of independents, white unmarried women, and white working-class women. “Ladders of opportunity” was just limp with those voters. Only around 40 percent could support it. It hardly got a hearing.
And maybe most important for the fate of the country, the “level the playing field” message was uniquely powerful in a potential contest against a Republican Party led by an economic nationalist, rather than a conventional Reagan conservative. In this contest, the Democrats’ message won by sixteen points overall and with a big twelve-point advantage in intensity.18 If the contest pitted a “ladders of opportunity” candidate against a Republican running on nationalist economics, the Democrat lost any edge in intensity.
A “level the playing field” framework also produced a chance for progressives to win the debate on which party was better on the economy—and the difference was stark. Voters who heard the “level the playing field” message gave Democrats a seven-point advantage on the economy, but when voters heard the “ladders of opportunity” message instead, the Republicans were favored by three points.
Hillary Clinton’s real economic narrative left Democrats weaker on the economy—because it was not really about the state of the economy. It was about the state of society.
The 2016 election was impacted crucially by which leader’s vision pushed voters to be engaged or disengaged. Hearing the “level the playing field” message increased enthusiasm among Democrats and millennials. But that enthusiasm fell when voters heard that the Democrats wanted to build “ladders of opportunity.” And when the Democrat was battling the economic nationalist, enthusiasm dropped four points with Democrats and two with the Rising American Electorate (unmarried women, minorities, and millennials).
Why was the Democrats’ most likely message such a disaster in the making? Because the message really was about society and sounded complacent about the economy. When asked what was convincing in the “ladders of opportunity” message, only 13 percent said it would mean help with the economy. That contrasted with the 41 percent who said that after they heard the “level the playing field” message.
The difference occurred because voters believed that the economy was rigged. And they thought it was rigged by the politicians in Washington above all, together with big corporations, lobbyists, and the wealthiest 1 percent. Voters believed this rigged economy was the result of a corrupt government that had produced an unacceptable status quo.
The “level the playing field” narrative was so powerful because it began with a tough diagnosis of the current economy that left the middle class on life support while the top tier reaped all the gains. It was so powerful because it explicitly rejected trickle-down economics and challenged a political system fueled by big campaign donations that allowed CEOs and billionaires to rig the rules of the economy at the expense of the middle class and small businesses. It was so powerful because of the depth of the economic critique, the demand for political reform, and the breadth of economic changes it proposed.
CLINTON CAMPAIGN (CONTINUED)
Right before the Connecticut primary, I watched Secretary Hillary Clinton and my wife, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, host a café discussion with working women. Beforehand, Clinton greeted me warmly and afterward Rosa and I hung back in the holding area to allow the secretary and I to speak alone and frankly. She was really moved and disturbed by what she had heard. She recounted similar stories from women in suburban Philadelphia, Tampa, and Brooklyn. “They’re in such pain. People are at their wits’ end. They feel hopeless and have nobody to turn to.”19
I said, yes, that is exactly what’s happening in the country, which she acknowledged, but then said, “How do I talk about their pain without sounding like I’m criticizing President Obama and his economy? I just can’t do that.”
I said, “I think you can manage a different balance,” and I said, “Why not use your own learning from listening to these folks as a way to talk about the economy? You are about to lock up an unassailable number of delegates, why not make that learning about the economy central to this new chapter?” I promised her a note, and worked feverishly to write it overnight.
Later, when I congratulated Clinton on the speech, via Huma Abedin, her closest confidant in every position, she wrote back, “Well you better. You inspired it!”
After that, I was asked to look at drafts of Clinton’s economic speeches before and after the convention, as well as drafts of her convention acceptance speech. John Podesta had me share my emails with Jake Sullivan and Dan Schwerin and later wrote, “Take some time and try to give us a short text in her voice that uses stronger together but hits your level the playing field points.” I was asked to brief Mandy Grunwald, who was managing the debate prep.
In response, I proposed a first point where “stronger together” means “everyone who works hard has an equal shot at America’s promise, an equal shot at joining the middle class and a better life.” But then I took my best populist shot: “We are stronger together, yet so many of our corporate and political leaders seem content to pursue their own goals, while so many hardworking people are struggling and don’t have an equal shot at a better life.”
The campaign’s response was completely schizophrenic. After Hillary delivered her economic speech in Cleveland, I wrote John, “President Obama could have delivered this speech. It is still a ‘build on the progress’ speech with some cheerleading for America.” And “not much populism or critique of how things went wrong or any culprits to be vanished.”
The next day in North Carolina I prepared for the worst when the warm-up speakers delivered the same cheerleading message. But then, she delivered a speech I rushed to embrace. I wrote Clinton, “Madam Secretary, I loved the North Carolina speech.” It was full of reforms, too.
“REWRITE THE RULES” LEVELED “BUILD ON THE PROGRESS”
The risk to Democrats in the general election was very real, and the Roosevelt Institute had Democracy Corps test a revised “rewrite the rules” message with its powerful critique of the economic status quo, yet one that closed with “stronger together.” Our test pitted it against the “build on the progress” message that Hillary Clinton had embraced that also finished with “stronger together.” All Democracy Corps polls were released publicly, so the goal was to get buy-in from Hillary Clinton and the campaign.
The results could not have been clearer and more instructive on how to win the election.
The candidate embracing a “rewrite the rules” message gained significant electoral ground against one with an economic nationalist vision. The
“build on the progress” candidate lost ground on the vote, enthusiasm, and much more. The “rewrite the rules” candidate gained votes with the base and swing voters, and energized millennials and minority voters. Getting the message right allowed the candidate to make gains on whom to trust on the economy.
The “rewrite the rules” framework would have allowed Clinton to grow her vote margin by four points, while she was losing a point with the current “build on the progress” message. That was disheartening if the campaign persisted with the original strategy, but exciting if she would embrace the change. The “rewrite the rules” message pushed up her margin by seven points with college women, who were part of her current base, and by five points with swing, white working-class women.
And critically, the “rewrite the rules” approach was twelve points stronger with the anti-Trump and anti-Clinton voter who might stay home in disgust or vote for the Green Party candidate.
All the respondents heard the very strong economic nationalist message, but at the end, those who heard a Democrat embracing the “rewrite the rules” critique were more likely to think the Democrat would bring growth that benefits all, help the economy, and make America stronger. That was sobering, and my public memo concluded, “We are happy to share these results in the hope of shaping this critical economic debate at the convention’s close and the eve of the general election campaign. The choice could not be more consequential.”
HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN (CONTINUED)
I met with John Podesta in New York and emailed Clinton: “Your economic message that you delivered in North Carolina flat out defeats” Trump’s economic nationalist message. “But when you are speaking about building on the progress, none of that happens.”
I had also been asked to react to a working draft of Clinton’s convention speech, and it initially included a lot of cheerleading of the economy, though progressive drafts got much better. I also wrote: “The missing piece is any frustration with politicians, special interests, corporate influence that distorts government and any desire to change the role of money in politics. I [think] that is dangerous and allows Trump to look like the guy who wants to [get] rid of crony capitalism.”20
Afterward, I wrote the campaign team, “I think the economic speech was done deftly—acknowledging Obama’s progress, but not good enough, with a ‘!’ A lot of storytelling about people’s pain. There is a lot about corporate responsibility and paying their fair share.” But I then added: “What’s missing is any critique or discomfort with politicians too moved by special interest money to work for change.”21
Clinton and Senator Tim Kaine headed out on their post-convention economic tour, and I wrote Podesta: “Yesterday, I’m sorry, could not have been worse on the economy. I just can’t understand why you feel the need to run on progress. You are the past and Trump is change and a better life. You sound clueless in blue-collar America.”
But then, they made a big turn that impacted the election. The draft economic speech included this core choice: “We have a vision for an economy and country that works for everyone, not just those at the top. Donald Trump has a vision for America that works for him and his family at the expense of everyone else.”22 That struck a chord, and Podesta had me brief Mandy Grunwald on our findings prior to the debate camp, where they worked with Clinton for a few days on how to deal with Trump in the three presidential debates in late September and early October.23
Clinton could not have been more on message during the three debates, and she made her biggest gains in the first and third debates on who would be better on the economy and for the middle class. She reached parity with Trump on who would do a better job on the economy. I shared the findings from the one hundred people I brought together online to watch the debates and register their responses on dial meters that I had conducted for the Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund, and wrote her an email: “I want to congratulate you on the debate, the campaign and economic message!”24
That was the last America heard from Hillary Clinton on the economy.
LOSING THE ECONOMY AND CAMPAIGN
I thought Hillary Clinton was going to win this election, but I saw no evidence that the campaign had fully consolidated or excited Democrats or that voters were rushing to vote for Democrats down-ballot. The Clinton speeches and the campaign’s ads hit Donald Trump for the racist and hateful things he said about various groups and his disrespect of women, but my research and experience showed that the campaign also needed to let voters know of the big economic changes and reforms Clinton’s election would bring. They needed to give people hope, or at the very least, they needed to show the economic choice—the number one issue in the election.
In her book Clinton later accepted that I might have been right that attacking Trump was not enough.
My recommended economic contrast that had been tested in polls began with “We need an economy that works for everyone, not just the rich and well-connected.” I hit the Republicans for supporting “trickle-down economics and more tax breaks for the richest and tax breaks for the corporations.” Republicans are getting buyoffs from Wall Street and the oil companies. Well, “We need to rebuild the middle class” and “invest in families, education, and jobs with rising incomes.” We must “protect Social Security by asking the rich to pay their fair share.”
What a difference it made in testing to close with that economic contrast. The attack on Trump barely helped on the congressional vote with millennials and white working-class women, but it dramatically increased the vote margin for Clinton and the Democrats with millennials, white working-class women, and unmarried women.
After the FBI reopened the investigation of Clinton’s State Department emails and the daily release of the emails hacked by the Russians, the race got closer and the campaign decided to simply disqualify Donald Trump. The Clinton campaign ran ads on Trump’s temperament, his capacity to handle the nuclear codes, and his vulgar treatment of women, which they thought would disqualify him to be president. They did not run ads on his treatment of workers and contractors. Voters did not see on the news or in Clinton’s paid advertising her plans for change. She called for greater unity and opportunity for everyone after a divisive election.
This put the Democrats at growing risk, particularly with Clinton silent on the economy and her future plans. President Bill Clinton told James Carville that the campaign, maddeningly, believed Hillary “couldn’t win the economy,” and John Podesta told me, “Mook believes we got nothing for all that time on the economy.” I now realized this was analytics, fake news, not real polling.
At Podesta’s urging, I wrote to Mook on November 1:
[James Comey] has raised the stakes in our turnout [of] our broad base. Trump will now consolidate more Republicans, and our consolidation of Democrats will stall. And that is our biggest, measurable problem: millennials are weak in the early vote, as you know, and our national polls show us getting only 79 percent of Sanders voters.
But I think there is an effective solution available to you.
The tough economic message that HRC delivered in the first and third debate, produced big gains on the economy, middle class, fighting special interests, and trust.
They are desperate to know you can bring change.
On November 3, I wrote to Mook, “Disqualifying not enough.” I got no response.
President Obama campaigned for Clinton in the closing weekends, and with a big megaphone said the country could elect a president “who will build on our progress. Who will finish the job.” She is “as well-prepared as anyone who ever ran” to solve the problems we have. For those “still in need of a good job or a raise” or a child who needs “a sturdier ladder out of poverty,” she’s your choice.
That view of the world put so many voters out of reach and gave us Donald Trump as president.
2018. AGAIN?
Everything President Donald Trump and the Republican Congress did after taking full control of the government alienated
the country. They governed for their rich donors and corporations, threatened voters’ health care and retirement, and made life harder for the middle class. Before the end of 2017, they had pushed the proportion of those thinking the country was on the wrong track to 75 percent.25
It was ugly, and I couldn’t find terms strong enough in my recommended messages to describe people’s sense of betrayal on affordable health care, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and the GOP’s promised tax cut for the 1 percent. I started with “enough politics as usual” and ended with, “I’m fed up”:
The Republican Congress said, trust us, no more politics as usual but they’ve taken U-turn after U-turn. They said their tax cuts would be for the middle class, but their plan is more trickle-down tax cuts for the top 1 percent who should pay their fair share. They promised better, cheaper health care, but their plans would make older workers pay five times more. They promised zero cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but they’re pushing drastic cuts to them all. Enough politics as usual and broken promises!
Just a year from the 2016 election, and my polls found that the most powerful message in influencing choice in the midterm election was already “Donald Trump and the Republicans are wedded to trickle-down economics and tax cuts for the richest.” The Democrats said trickle-down had failed and the richest needed to “pay their fair share of taxes.” And the Democrats’ strongest message began: “I’m fed up. Our economy and politics are rigged so they work against the hardworking middle class.” Be warned, “corporate lobbyists and billionaires” are hard at work. And the message was most effective in shifting the vote to the Democrats when it was almost wholly negative. A version that was mostly positive was about 40 percent weaker in its effect.
Rip Gop Page 24
