What should the smart 2016 GOP presidential campaigns be doing?

What should the smart 2016 GOP presidential campaigns be doing?

By Ed Rogers
April 1, 2015
The Washington Post


As we end the first quarter of 2015, it’s as good a time as any to reflect on what has happened in the 2016 GOP presidential race so far. The biggest question is, has anything meaningful actually happened? Have any of the candidates said or done anything really defining that will continue to have an impact when voting actually starts? The short answer is “no.”

In Washington, it’s easy to lose perspective because we live and breathe politics every day. As foolish as it is, we constantly take the day’s headlines and extrapolate out to the next election — as if what is happening today has any real bearing on how Republicans will vote in the early primaries next year. Just look at the controversy swirling over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, former Florida governor Jeb Bush’s fundraising prowess, Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) announcing that he will sign up for Obamacare, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker punting on a question of whether he believes President Obama is a Christian, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie weighing in on the mandatory vaccine debate, GOP candidates being asked to analyze the “Iran deal” or the countless other things candidates feel like they have to speak about today.

But nothing that has been said or done by any of the candidates or potential candidates has substantially helped or hindered them, nor has anything so far clearly defined any of the candidates or informed voters about a particular candidate’s pluses and minuses. So far, no one has committed a gaffe or had a breakthrough moment that will have any impact on the ultimate voting. Shaping a campaign and a candidate’s positions is an incremental process, and most of the potential GOP candidates are probably less than 5 percent into that process. Much to my surprise, the 2016 field isn’t even fully formed yet.

So what should good 2016 presidential campaigns be doing right now? They should be primarily focused on recruiting leaders in key early states and raising money. As others have already pointed out, traditional fundraising plans have been skewed by the quest for giant whale contributors. Having someone write your super PAC a $100 million or so contribution could mean the difference between being viable or not — and, unfortunately, could make a difference in who the next president of the United States will be. But here we are. Campaigns are forced to make a real, concerted effort to attract mega-donors. (And you can bet Hillary Clinton will have several.) But at the same time, candidates shouldn’t overlook other contributors in their pursuit of those big-name mega-donors.

It is also useful for candidates to begin to make some occasional live TV appearances so voters and the media can begin to critique their performances and shape a more informed view of each of the candidate’s talents and positions. And obviously, the candidates need to be pressing the flesh, but at this stage of the game, small events are more important than large events. Big crowds or anything like a rally is a waste at this point. With the campaign tempo quickening, there is a powerful temptation to waste money. But the smart campaigns avoid excessive hiring, hospitality suites, pointless travel, printed material and even polling.

The best campaigns avoid confrontation and resist reacting to the daily news. They remember that quieter is better than louder, that you need money in the bank and that select individuals are more important than big crowds and mass exposure.

Link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/04/01/the-insiders-what-should-the-smart-2016-gop-presidential-campaigns-be-doing/

Share this post