minutes: 81:34 to 99:10
We need to steal Rove's secret core strategy, by very publicly targeting Rove's target:
"somebody who probably voted for Barak Obama the last time, who actually likes him, even if they don't necessarily like a lot of the things that have happened under Obama's Presidency, maybe they're hurting economically."
And using his strategy, respect:
"We need to be respectful, we need to focus on the issues at hand, if we call Obama a socialist, or we call him a left winger, or say he's a bad person, these voters that we are trying to reach will recoil from that. Their whole plan is to speak in a very clear neutral tone, as they would present it, and not get nasty and personal."
We also need to pay more attention to Karl's third priority, the Senate.
I have some homework to do on this myself, so expect to hear more from me about targeting Senate runs.
On DemocracyNow Amy interviewed Sheila Kolhatkar, with Bloomberg Businessweek, who crashed an American Crossroads/GPS update breakfast, and relates observations that they are treated much as a single organization (minutes 86 – 88 What is the distinction between GPS and Crossroads?).
Sheila Kolhatkar, quoting Karl Rove, Haley Barbour, and Steven Law laying out their strategy:
89:15 "they were sharing all this data… sharing these focus groups with the other outside fund raising organizations, such as Americans for Prosperity"
89:30 "Out of all this research they had created a very specific picture of the type of voter that they need to reach in order to tip the election in Mitt Romney's favor. They said that this is somebody who probably voted for Barak Obama the last time, who actually likes him, even if they don't necessarily like a lot of the things that have happened under Obama's Presidency, maybe they're hurting economically. But it's a very small group of people who fall into this camp."
90:00 "Steven Law asked Rove, "when can we take the gloves off? When can the campaign get more pointed and more personal?…
Rove said, actually that is not the strategy that's gonna work. We need to be respectful, we need to focus on the issues at hand, if we call Obama a socialist, or we call him a left winger, or say he's a bad person, these voters that we are trying to reach will recoil from that. Their whole plan is to speak in a very clear neutral tone, as they would present it, and not get nasty and personal."
91:00 "the whole thing lives or dies on the Senate. For either party the Senate is crucial." (Whichever party wins the presidency will win or lose, ObamaCare for a start, without the Senate majority.)
We already respect all possible voters, we, like them, are sick of all the money, deadlock, and dirt.
We are the party for those who are sick of voting against people, so we already target Karl Rove's demographic.
Regardless of whether they have voted, or who they've voted for, we particularly respect voters who don't want to vote for big money, because we are just like them, since we take no money from corporations, and have no PACs. We understand those who feel their party has been bought out from under them, and the independents and the nonvoters, because we have been there.
We respect those who are sick of voting to protest a candidate rather than support one, by giving them something to vote for.
We may even want to posit that this may well be the majority of American Voters, who often agree with us on other things too.
We also must be more clear to the spoileralert-ists that the real majority are those who don't vote, who we all should be reaching out to, and how their team fails to do this less well at peril.
A former Obama voter stays home, unable to bring their self to put on shoes to go vote for Romney, are afraid that at the polls they will breakdown and vote for Obama. This is the voter the Green Party is there for.
A lot of people from both mega-corp teams are talking about voting for "the" other party, but they don't really want to.
Those who feel like protesting both parties are the vast majority, most of our potential voters won't otherwise vote.
Many of them would rather not vote for "their" party to protest what has been going on, but surely many of these would rather not vote for the other team, even if that's the only protest vote they think will matter.
The key solution is a protest against both parties that counts for something as well.
If they can't vote for us they should vote Socialist, Libertarian, or Constitution Party.
Not much changes about our core message.
We're here, on 95% of ballots, don't take corp money, aren't going away, and your vote for us is a much more effective protest of big money.
We need to imitate this strategy, and point out that we are working to target these potential Romney votes.
This is a world where information does not seek one, one seeks information.
A story about how we are using Rove's strategy could notify people to come find out about us.
It is only those who seek a message who really hear it, esp. today.
Getting the word out that we are targeting people who want to vote for Obama, but can't, the critical voters that Rove is targeting, is a dual message that has layers to each message if massaged right.
Everyone knows Obama is doing it too, focus groups, lots of money, but everyone is also curious, what's Rove's strategy? We can tell them, and we can let them know we to represent their concerns, we want them to google Jill and find out about us.
THE MESSAGE FOR US:
Ironically, coming from Karl Rove, the primary message for us is that we need to be much more respectful.
We need to understand everyone, but especially those who least understand us, because they are closest to us.
We need to be understanding of those who may have voted Dem or Rep in the past.
We understand everyone.
We get the nonvoters, we get the independents, we get the Dems, we get the Reps and the Libs, because we were all those things, and in many ways most of us still partly are.
Stop needlessly ridiculing the votes and opinions of others.
Be careful about some of the more incendiary charges we tend to throw at Obama.
I for one have recently become convinced to stop claiming Obama has suspended habeus corpus, for there is evidence, that many believe, that he has not. The relevant fact for me is that those who believe he has, and those who do not, are not likely to be receptive to others who insist they are wrong.
There is plenty of damage he has done to our rights, international law, and the lives of people around the world in so many ways besides just ending many of them. I will cite the details if asked to.
I might dig up a few citations to support some of them, but am unlikely to change many minds by doing so if I'm rude about it.
All I need to say, unless pressed, is that I believe Obama has diminished human rights, murdered innocents by fiat, and abrogated our treaty obligations.
People who will not vote for us are beyond our ability to reach, by definition.
Those who may vote for us are critical thinkers, and we cannot reach them with emotionally charged exaggerations, or even undocumented truth that is easily taken as primarily an emotional appeal.
Emotions are important, but we must pay more attention to the emotions we ourselves engender, to ensure they are positive ones.
Producing positive reactions is infinitely more valuable than evincing negative ones; the duelling bank accounts generate plenty enough hate to go round for both parties involved, with plenty left to draw on by just by intelligently and dispassionately drawing it down.
This may well sound like the pot calling the kettle black. It is also a promise to do better on my own part as well.
I will get emotional when I think it is right, but it's my cold dispassion that is most often felt as venom.
Truth dispassionately cited is more powerful to making new friends than a focus on the anger and fear.
For this strategy to work, we must stop validating the feeling that we are converting Dems by not believing it ourselves.
Stop acting like it is anything but a waste of time to try to convert fervent Obama voters.
If we comport ourselves as though these people are not our concern (as they aren't), we can more easily make the case that it is Romney's votes we are stealing anyway, we could get a win win and actually be the reason Obama wins.
I strongly believe that if Obama wins it is more likely next we will have a much better showing than if Romney wins, because I think the Dems will end up much weaker.
Ignore the outspoken Dem's emotional state, but be nice, they have friends who are our voters.
If you are pressed, point out that we take no corporate money, and only expect the votes of those who would vote against Obama anyway.
We respect your right to support whoever you like, but don't expect to be taken seriously if you keep crying wolf while being eaten by dragons.
I'd really like to hear your thoughts on this,
Monte Letourneau – Necedah WIwigp.org