The troll under American Bridge

by | Nov 10, 2014 | 2014 Elections, Editor's Blog, US Senate | 13 comments

I’ve been a critic of the Democratic super PACs’ Koch brothers obsession for months. So I wasn’t surprised when a reporter called asking for a comment on a memo released by American Bridge, the research arm of those super PACs, touting the success of attacking the Kochs and announcing that they were doubling down on the strategy heading into 2016. I said they were “fools” (I should have said foolish) and explained why I think the strategy is so flawed.

Friday morning, my twitter feed lit up with insulting and belittling tweets from the senior staff of American Bridge. I figured the Politico article was out. The hour-long twitter fight quickly deteriorated into petty insults and over-the-top accusations of “traitorous dems.” These groups now apparently consider themselves the Democratic Party. You can read the full exchange here.

This story could be about a group of Democratic operatives paid by billionaires to attack other billionaires who felt it necessary to beat up on a blogger from North Carolina with the audacity to criticize their plans. But it’s not. It’s about a small group of powerful operatives, consultants, politicians and donors who believe they should control the message and operations of Democratic campaigns. They use money as the leverage to force campaigns to fall in line and have little tolerance for dissent.

US Senate campaigns have become increasingly nationalized for over a decade. With Citizens United, the process is complete. No candidates can raise $50 million to mount a modern campaign and the party committees use the promise of money to control the hiring of senior staff and consultants. Now, super PACs, who outspend the candidate campaigns, have taken control of the message.

If these organizations offered unparalleled competence and insight, this system might have more merit. But they don’t. Instead of focusing on issues that matter to the voters, they focus on issues that matter to their benefactors–in this case, Harry Reid and his obsession with the Koch brothers. They are a political class out of touch with the lives of average Americans and have been for years.

They downplay or outright dismiss the importance of state political environments. The director of research at American Bridge condescendingly refers to state political operatives as “staties.” In North Carolina, Kay Hagan almost beat the Republican wave because her campaign localized the race. As one Hagan adviser told National Journal, “We turned this into a school board race.”

The people who run these organizations might do well to listen to a few of the “staties.” They have closer connections to and a better understanding of the working-class voters who decide elections in swing states. The DC establishment types only know the swing voters in the context of cross tabs and focus groups, often missing the nuances that can motivate or persuade voters.

There’s certainly a need for a national political message, especially in midterm elections. They just got the wrong one. They tried to convince voters that a couple of billionaire brothers control the Republican party so they can rig the system for themselves and their cronies. But voters already believe the system is rigged. They just think Democrats are as much to blame as Republicans.

Instead, the national message should have given voters something to vote for, not just against. What if, instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars demonizing the Koch brothers, Democrats had spent the money to push increasing the minimum wage and making college more affordable? They might not have been able to turn back the Republican wave, but nobody would be asking what Democrats stand for. And just maybe that national message, layered atop the local focus, could have made the difference in a race as close as Kay Hagan’s.

The consultants and operatives who make up these super PACs view the political people in the states as provincial and myopic, while they see themselves as having a more sophisticated, big-picture perspective on the American political landscape. In fact, they do just what too many political people everywhere do: They spend too much time talking to themselves and believing their own spin. They are just as provincial as the targets of their condescension.

13 Comments

  1. Jim Hammerle

    Your commentary could just as well have substituted Republican for the word Democratic. Nothing new and no plausible suggestions. Grasping at straws and insignificant things such as “staties.” Where’s the beef? Mostly post-game quarterbacking.

    • Fetzer Mills, Jr.

      You win by being George Corley Wallace or Huey Long without the racism. The Republicans were breathing fire over nothing and the Democrats came across as the type of people who would lecture you about how my outdoor smoking is polluting their air and destroying their health and then giving you a lecture on the health risks of tobacco. They’re correct of course, but you don’t vote for people like that.

  2. Philip Morrison

    KC,

    I could argue that Repugs successfully “educated” the public about Obama’s supposed mishandling of the Ebola epidemic and ISIS’ territorial gains…during the general election campaign window. According to some sources, Tillis’ polling picked up when he pivoted to these issues during the second debate.

    It might not have mattered what national issues the Dems focused on in this election. I think their deficiencies at messaging were exposed. They were out-matched by the Repug propaganda machine which is the best in the world at brainwashing people.

    Of course, SC(r)OTU(m)S’ Citizens’ United decision enabling $4 billion to be poured into this election (mostly from SuperPacs), and having control of the mainstream media helped tremendously. (It can be argued that Chuck Todd figured heavily in McConnell’s victory; with “objective” journalists like that, who needs Repug cheerleaders).

    A general question for Thomas:

    Are you worried about the FCC’s net neutrality decision as far as your viability as a left-of-center political writer? I ask because I am relying on the internet more heavily for my left-of-center news. If the internet is somehow muzzled, I’d have nowhere to turn for non-Repug-inflected/-infected news.

    I worry about our democracy on that score as well. The first step in establishing a dictatorship is the control of the media. I feel the Repugs have virtually got that in print, TV, and radio media now. Can the obliteration of net neutrality enable Repugs/corporations (they are the same to my mind now) to take over the internet?

  3. KC O'Dea

    Even as someone come from the opposite side of the political fence, I completely agree with you Thomas. This new election strategy of “national” arrogantly calling the shots has overtaken both political parties.

    When both parties decide to play it that way, it’s less a race about the individual candidates, and more about the the current popularity polls. I’m probably too young to remember most of the transition, but how did the days of the legendary “finger on the pulse of North Carolina” campaign manager fade so quickly?

    I saw a You-Gov poll that showed that half the country had no idea who the Koch brothers are. I suspect the recognition rate of the name Obama is a bit higher. Good for GOP/Bad for DEM.

    What genius decides that the general election campaign window is the best time to use resources trying to enlighten this half of the population.

    KC

  4. Philip Morrison

    Maybe, instead of the Koch Brothers, Kay Hagen should have attacked ALEC. I felt that her one question for Thom Tillis on debate number 2 should have been: “In 2011, you won executive of the year of ALEC, an organization which writes model legislation adopted by “Repugnican” legislatures around the country. How many times did you vote against ALEC model legislation?”. Alternately, she could have asked how many bills he brought to the floor had not been taken from ALEC model legislation. She could have done some opposition research and called him on whatever lie he came up with.

    A big piece of ALEC’s funding comes from the Koch Brothers. So, she would have roped them into the fray as well, but she would be educating the public on the real driving force (of evil) behind Republican legislation in state houses. If the Repugs take over the presidency in 2016, ALEC will be writing the legislation coming from the Federal government as well. It’s high time Dems educated the public on ALEC’s undue influence.

    It’s funny that everyone I talked to in the Kay Hagen campaign said that voters wouldn’t know what ALEC was. Well, isn’t it Kay Hagen’s job to educate the voters on the power behind the throne of all Repugs? Even if this line of attack did not win her the election, she might have done lasting damage to the Repug brand. It’s a win-win to my mind.

  5. jweaksnc

    but, but, but… Koch brothers! Koch brothers!!!

    LOL

  6. Mary-Ann Baldwin

    It’s about the message. We don’t have one.

  7. Fetzer Mills Jr

    This is a problem we’ve had with the national Democrats for years. We need more state university graduates serving in cabinet and sub cabinet level and far fewer Ivy Leaguers. And Ivy Leaguers should be banned from electoral politics. The only time most Ivy Leaguers ever meet an average citizen is when they duck into Starbucks for a Venti Mocha Latte. Not many people in my part of the country speak Starbucks.

    • Jim Hammerle

      Nonsense.

  8. Paul Shannon

    Nice Thomas. Give them hell. Sorry to see Brad Woodhouse was involved.

    • Thomas Mills

      Unfortunately, that’s a pervasive attitude among the DC crowd. And it’s been that way for years. Thanks for reading, Charlie.

    • Jim Hammerle

      Right.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!