What Goes Up...
Whenever something is presented as a "fait accompli," think again.
I am old enough to remember the “I” offense in football. Defenses were set up to go against it. Power was the name of the game. Purists saw it a certain way. These orthodoxies were accepted as the only way. A guy named Chip Kelly in Oregon wanted to do things differently. He realized, “if I have skilled players, I can ‘spread’ out the offense and put these Power defenses on their heels.” Skilled Pac-10 teams ran all over the Power Big-10 teams for years in the Rose Bowl. Then, people began to switch. The running back became a commodity in the offense. Skill was all that mattered. Mobility in the Quarterback as well as receivers became the premium. Defenses adjusted. More defensive backs, less Power. The Wall Street Journal said essentially, it is the end of the running back as the feature of an offense.
Then the Giants used the RB to change the equation. Saquon Barkley ran over everyone. All of a sudden, the Power Back found a role again. Who knows, we may see a full back come back too.
The Politico published something similar today- for politics, not football. We have been saying it since the Prop 50 discussions- redistricting is focused on the wrong thing. The number of competitive districts is shrinking precipitously, and the efforts will likely yield “a push.“ With it, the polarization of our population is growing- or is it? To quote Star Wars, “from a certain point of view.” As we predicted, the redistricting would push districts further to the base. With every action, there needs to be a counter-reaction (and I will land the plane).
So, as the situation sets up, yes, Politico and its quotes are correct. If the current rules apply, then yes, the “engineering” to redistrict will hold. Bifurcation of the parties and their electorate will yield the intended results. However, what if the equation shifts? What if the old alliances break down?
We have been writing about such a dynamic here in California. Marginalizing a portion of the electorate, upwards of 40% or more can create a huge portion to grab those who want to shift the conversation and not happy in the majority. Politics and causes are not homogenous.
Democrats are pulling further left, and the party will go into full revolution when Trump is gone.
Republicans are pulling further right. Many are not loving the far right pull of MAGA.
What if someone competing decided to reach out and grab “cross over” votes? What if the result of partisanship is more bipartisan candidates, once they figure it out? What if those “shut out,” realize “80% of something is better than 100% of nothing.” What if they realize they could be the “largest block” of the elected? Democrats were once Dixiecrats. Republicans were once liberal. It is not crazy.
It will require a needle to be threaded the first time in a long time.
Once it is done, imagine the implications? The best laid plans of mice and men right? What if say, Matt Mahan had pulled the Hilton voters to him and got through to the General? What if, conversely, Hilton was not so MAGA and pulled those not satisfied with the options on the Democrat side? You are only talking about 10% of the electorate here to push the needle the other way.
Neither Party is attuned to the messaging or the tactics necessary to accomplish the “bipartisan” approach, but the frustration with those in Power, those “beholden to the base,” offers something different. We have been so engineered, we are throwing away huge blocs of voters because those engineering want to fight over the pie instead of expanding it- they are one trick ponies.
Here is the thing, Authenticity and candidate quality will matter. We wrote a lot about these themes in the fall when Prop 50 was going to win.
The opportunity is great to “break things.” Hear that Silicon Valley? “Break things.” Innovators dilemma- but you need to give people what they want.
Napster broke things, but Apple made money because everyone was tired of the viruses on their computer. Think of the viruses we are seeing from the “extremes.”
Once something is accepted as “gospel,” it means it is vulnerable. someone will figure out the tactics. The tactics will not be entirely new, they will rather be a combination in a new package, shifting the dynamic.
It reminds me of the conversation I had this morning with “Pete.” We were discussing how we were able to beat a very Powerful competitor in Washington. What was the tactic? We scripted their moves for them by pushing their moves out publicly before they did it.
Congress was able to say, “oh there is the proof of the improper actions,” proving allegations and forcing them into the spotlight, because we scripted what would otherwise look innocuous as actually far more malicious than originally intended.
We forced our competitors to lose their initiative.
We limited their supporters.
We drove the conversation.
We won what they dominated in.
How did we do it?
Inside baseball. Intelligence. Publishing the moves before they happened.
When they did make their move, we had the initiative, with receipts, to show this was the intention all along. We colored the move before they made it.
We shifted their momentum to us.
We made their “clever,” look “ordinary.” We were “clever” for seeing what “became obvious” to all observers. Their best options off the table, they then had to use other means to control the narrative, none effective and each playing “catch up.”
Each time, we got out in front, telling observers what was happening, and voila when it happened, it looked ordinary for them and we rose in prominence.
Notice a similarity?
So, how do you apply the tactic to a political campaign? It can be done. We have done it in a silent pilot- look at the Mahan Campaign criticism and commentary on the Primary. Look at how we scripted the moves many have been making, and we do not have “inside information” like we did in Washington.
For instance, what about our call of Becerra’s rise?
Politico had a great quote today about the campaign, essentially saying something we called back three weeks ago- Newsom’s people’s hostile takeover.
“Suddenly, a shoestring campaign was infused with money and additional staff, including top players in Newsom’s orbit. The more professionalized operation established a polished digital presence and helped secure a slew of endorsements from establishment players in Democratic politics ahead of the June 2 top-two primary.”
“Sure, the “old hands,” those who started a campaign with a 4% Candidate will be “senior” roles, but the “take over” has begun. “Senior” in this word is essentially “emeritus.” It is hostile, even if the deaths will be silent and subtle. Swalwell’s senior staff from the Governor’s office are now with Becerra. You read that right, but do not forget- the same people who knew and went along with Swalwell are now with their second, third, fifth, who knows what number, choice.”
How would I have used it?
I would have been attacking the names, the fact they are doing a hostile takeover, describing how it would happen, undermining the rise putting the message on, “well, we knew it would happen, and why would we expect anything less. Just another example of how our politics is fixed and corrupt.”
It is not a secret, so call them out. Make them eat it when it was out there. Take the initiative. It is a series of small wins showing momentum, showing foresight, showing you are on top of the Game.
Want more? Look at SB 782 and how we scripted what would happen. It happened as we said it would. They waited out the freshness of the criticism and the media did not keep it alive. However, we have receipts. Micro-examples showing momentum.
What about AB 797 and the financing? Same thing. Enough time passed from the veto for those in LA County to use their “model” to show they were the originators, though the receipts exist here. They will “change it” just enough to take credit, but those who need to, know where it originated.
Missing from our Substack is the “amplification of the signal” as people call it in the business. Amplification comes from a campaign, a PR blitz, or the media. We are creating the raw material to break down these models, orthodoxies, and expectations, showing how it can be done different.
The hope is- the conversation shifts. Moreover, the tactics “spread.”
We find a message to be more “centrist,” breaking the hold of the “base.”
Our Gubernatorial Primary could have done it.
We can then attack without personal attacks, rather, the substance of the Candidate, while building up our Candidate simultaneously. It is a two for one.
It is why these Substacks are important.
We show the NBD, the fact these moves are not as “clever,” as people think, calling it out for all to see, giving us rise in validity, something voters crave right now.
Shine the sunlight. Bridge the gaps. See where it goes.
When something is said to be forever, start wondering when the cracks start to emerge. California is getting to that point- I can see it. Honestly, I think the weakness is such that it can happen faster than people realize, but, it has to be done intelligently, it has to meet the moment, it has to give people more than 25% of the population selecting a Governor like we have now. It is time to re-think it, but you cannot do it with an “I” offense and a 3-4 defense.
It is time to bring in the Spread, change the rules, and force a re-alignment.
New tactics. Call them out. Get the centrists to align, party be damned. Parties are brands. Brands can be weakened or new ones can start.
Give those who need cover, cover, to be what they all want to be.
Many of us are done with advocates controlling the conversation.
We are done with extremism.
When John Fetterman is attacked for voting with his Party 93% of the time, there is something wrong. It is about his constituents, not the Party. It is not orthodoxy or purity, it is more than that. Base be damned.
We have jumped the shark, but to get back to center, we have to push people where they have never been. You have to fight the battle on multiple levels- with the electorate, the Machine, and the Consultants. Once you win, they all follow. The time has come.
Politico, I hope we look back on this piece and remember it as a watershed one, bringing us to a point where we realize how we need to recalibrate.