Monday, May 2, 2011

No Republican Frontrunner is Good for GOP

With no obvious Republican frontrunner and lagging enthusiasm among Republicans with the current GOP field, Democrats are hoping that there may not be a strong Republican contender to challenge President Obama. Many Republicans are understandably nervous; the longer a candidate waits to enter the race, the less time he or she will have to raise money, establish a brand, and sell his message to the voters.


Not to worry. All these disadvantages are relatively easy to overcome and there are significant advantages to entering the race late.

Because the election cycle now lasts two years, early frontrunners risk losing the initiative. It is simply too difficult to maintain momentum over a protracted period. Inevitably, the novelty of your candidacy fades, you run out of original sound-bites, and voters become increasingly desensitized to your message. The more you talk, the less they listen. Even if you win the primary, the loss of momentum does not bode well for the general election.

Another risk of being the early frontrunner is that you give the opposition more time to research and define you. As you give stomp speech after stomp speech, interview after interview, the other side exploits every gaffe, every inconsistency in your message. Your opponents have ample time to discern your weaknesses and strengths, and to experiment with different talking points to see which lines of attack work and which don’t. Eventually, you’re forced to spend precious time and resources fending off attacks from every direction. This is exhausting and can distract from the message you want voters to hear.

Finally, the more time a candidate spends on the campaign trail, the more mistakes he’s likely to make. In a 24-hour news cycle, absolutely no gaffe, no controversial comment, will go unnoticed and unreported. Campaign blunders are inevitable and the longer you campaign, the more blunders you’re likely to make.

Given the pitfalls of running a two-year campaign, running a shorter race offers notable advantages that if shrewdly exploited can be decisive.

A candidate entering a race with the presumptive frontrunners already in place will instantly dominate the news cycle, at least temporarily pushing the leading candidates out of the spotlight. By seizing the momentum, the candidate has a golden opportunity to redefine the race and to excite a segment of the electorate that may have become complacent or is lukewarm about the current crop of candidates. The opportunity to redefine the race so late in the game presents a critical strategic advantage, giving your opponents limited time for opposition research and to plan an effective counterattack. When they finally do respond, they will do so on your terms. A hallmark of effective strategy is to force opponents to fight on the battlefield of your choosing. You achieve this by shaking up the field and forcing opponents to react to the new dynamic you injected into the race.

A strong campaign kickoff forces opponents to regroup, to alter their message to address the new threat. Going off message can cause confusion and chaos, exposing gaps and weaknesses in their positions. Meanwhile, you build momentum through aggressive and disciplined campaigning.

In essence, by entering the race late, you can change the dynamic of the campaign. Entering late also gives you the advantage of flexibility. While your opponents have already established a relatively fixed campaign narrative after months of campaigning, you have several branding options to choose from. You can maneuver to the right, left, or center; focus on leadership, experience, or change, depending on the others’ strengths and weaknesses.

There are exceptions to the pitfalls of running a long campaign. Barack Obama entered the race early and never lost momentum. But his was a unique case. Obama was the first African American candidate who had a real chance of winning the Democratic primary. Backed by a press core infatuated with his candidacy, his momentum and novelty never faded. A candidate with such unique attributes isn’t likely to emerge again anytime soon. Moreover, Barack Obama was not the early frontrunner. That honor belonged to Hillary Clinton. Obama’s underdog status helped him sustain momentum throughout a grueling campaign.

In order for the late entrant strategy to work, the candidate has to be highly credible, competent, and politically savvy. Above all, he has to be interesting. The candidate cannot be someone like Fred Thomson, who entered the 2008 GOP primary late with significant fanfare, but his rather boring and uninspired platform--not to mention inconsequential governing record--failed to energize voters. The right candidate must immediately inject excitement into the race through powerful rhetoric and a demonstrated track record of bold governance.

4 comments:

  1. Nice analysis of the trade-offs of the timing of when to throw your hat in the ring. I do miss the political side-show of the process of how Veep is selected (a la George H W Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Republican_National_Convention)

    Regardless of the timing, what about the qualities that a GOP candidate needs to possess to beat Obama? With the recent UBL kill, there doesn't seem to be a GOP candidate with any real foreign policy experience. Ironically, the man who had no experience in 2008 will probably have the most in 2012. Perhaps the GOP doesn't have an advantage this cycle in what is traditionally their strong point.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're probably right, but I don't think UBL will be a central campaign issue. Foreign policy might still be a liability for Obama if Reps make a convincing case that America has lost prestige under his leadership, despite UBL's assasination. As Brit Hume said, it's not as if Obama was vulnerable in 2012 because he hadn't captured Osama. This mission clearly enhances Obama's reputation, but I'm not sure it takes foreign policy off the table in 2012. I am also not convinced Reps shouldn't try to capitalize on the fact that the foundation for the intelligence that eventually led to this operation was obtained using techniques and via a process that Obama has since discarded.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good point about Obama not being vulnerable b/c he hadn't killed UBL. However, it's the one campaign promise he pretty much kept (if he had opp to take out UBL he wouldnt wait for Pakistan approval) IDK if bringing up water-boarding is a long term winning issue unless the perceived terror threat increases. Gitmo is entirely off the table and settled debate. Long term policy in the areas of FP more broadly:

    - Af-Pak policy
    - Iran
    - Arab Revolutions / Libya

    Domestically GOP has plenty of ammo unless the economic atmosphere changes dramatically. Most Presidents don't survive high gas / unemployment. I do have to give Obama credit not only for taking out UBL, but not trying to time it to elections - he played very little politics with this and should be allowed to crow a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Agreed, but I don't think Obama had a chance to play politics with this. I mean, what is he going to tell the CIA and DoD to hold off on executing the mission until October 2012? That's probably an impeachable offense. Yes, the "campaign promise kept" is a very srong card, not the least because at the time it was made, the promise was a political risk (pretty much the only risk I recall Obama took in the campaign.)

    ReplyDelete

Post a New Comment