Smith Strategies
For those of you (if any) not on Aldon Hynes
email list, I pass along some interesting information about Sean Smith,
Lieberman's spokesperson in recent days. Seems he is the chief cook and bottle
washer at Smith Strategies, where his strategizing
philosophy is set forth as
follows:
"Sean has pioneered a communications technique known as “impression management.” Based on the premise that it is the low-information, episodic voter that swings elections—and that those voters only make broad impressions of candidates—Sean has developed an innovative approach to political communications. He has successfully applied these principles to issue campaigns and general communications campaigns."
It is not at all clear what this means, but here's my translation, for what it's worth. Sean relies on the fact that most people are ignorant and are pretty happy that way. They don't vote based on serious thought. They vote based on how they feel about someone. As Steven Colbert would say, they aren't interested in truth (far too complicated and hard to figure out), they are only looking for truthiness. This is really not a new insight; in fact, it has been with us since the dawn of our democracy. Remember "Tippecanoe and Tyler too"? So, presumably, Sean wants to make sure people have a good impression of Lieberman, or maybe a bad impression of Lamont, or both.
There's no question this approach works, except when it doesn't. When doesn't it work? It doesn't work when people are hurting, like they were in 1932. No amount of "impression management" was going to help Herbert Hoover. It only works half the time if the other guy is doing it too, since there's only one winner. And it doesn't work when the "low information-episodic voter" isn't a factor in the election. When is that? How about a mid-August primary? It is going to be a daunting task for Joe to turn out those voters in sufficient numbers to counteract the high information regular voters who are just itching to vote against Joe in August no matter how hot it is.
That's not rocket science, so we are left with two alternatives. Joe is not being very smart, or Joe is looking toward an independent run and a general election in which he can count on those "low information-episodic voters" to vote for him because their impressions have been nicely managed. That assumes, of course, that those impressions can be managed, but its not as if there won't be some push-back. (My suggestion: Marry him to George Bush and show that kiss over and over) And, as CTblogger points out here , Lieberman's favorable numbers in Connecticut are high, but they're drifting down in tandem with Bush's. Both politicians and the press tend to believe that high favorability numbers imply a high degree of enthusiasm about a politician. Sometimes that's true. But sometimes it's just a reflection of the fact that there's a lot of low information episodic voters whose commitment to their response is as low as their information stockpile. It doesn't take that much to turn them around. I have spent a lot of time around Democrats in my time, and it's been a long time since I've talked to anyone who likes Joe Lieberman. People like Chris Dodd, people tolerate Joe Lieberman. It won't break many hearts if Joe goes down the tubes.
"Sean has pioneered a communications technique known as “impression management.” Based on the premise that it is the low-information, episodic voter that swings elections—and that those voters only make broad impressions of candidates—Sean has developed an innovative approach to political communications. He has successfully applied these principles to issue campaigns and general communications campaigns."
It is not at all clear what this means, but here's my translation, for what it's worth. Sean relies on the fact that most people are ignorant and are pretty happy that way. They don't vote based on serious thought. They vote based on how they feel about someone. As Steven Colbert would say, they aren't interested in truth (far too complicated and hard to figure out), they are only looking for truthiness. This is really not a new insight; in fact, it has been with us since the dawn of our democracy. Remember "Tippecanoe and Tyler too"? So, presumably, Sean wants to make sure people have a good impression of Lieberman, or maybe a bad impression of Lamont, or both.
There's no question this approach works, except when it doesn't. When doesn't it work? It doesn't work when people are hurting, like they were in 1932. No amount of "impression management" was going to help Herbert Hoover. It only works half the time if the other guy is doing it too, since there's only one winner. And it doesn't work when the "low information-episodic voter" isn't a factor in the election. When is that? How about a mid-August primary? It is going to be a daunting task for Joe to turn out those voters in sufficient numbers to counteract the high information regular voters who are just itching to vote against Joe in August no matter how hot it is.
That's not rocket science, so we are left with two alternatives. Joe is not being very smart, or Joe is looking toward an independent run and a general election in which he can count on those "low information-episodic voters" to vote for him because their impressions have been nicely managed. That assumes, of course, that those impressions can be managed, but its not as if there won't be some push-back. (My suggestion: Marry him to George Bush and show that kiss over and over) And, as CTblogger points out here , Lieberman's favorable numbers in Connecticut are high, but they're drifting down in tandem with Bush's. Both politicians and the press tend to believe that high favorability numbers imply a high degree of enthusiasm about a politician. Sometimes that's true. But sometimes it's just a reflection of the fact that there's a lot of low information episodic voters whose commitment to their response is as low as their information stockpile. It doesn't take that much to turn them around. I have spent a lot of time around Democrats in my time, and it's been a long time since I've talked to anyone who likes Joe Lieberman. People like Chris Dodd, people tolerate Joe Lieberman. It won't break many hearts if Joe goes down the tubes.
Posted: Friday - April 21, 2006 at 09:29 PM
Quick Links
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 17, 2007 07:17 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 17, 2007 07:17 PM