We are in the midst of campaign season. Last Wednesday, political strategists David Axelrod and Beth Myers came to Tufts to discuss "How to Win an Election." Last Thursday, juniors Gauri Seth and Ryan Johnson announced their candidacy for TCU President. Coincidence?
Most likely, it was, but I can't help think about the similarities between campaigns both on a national and a local level. During the discussion with David Axelrod, a top Democratic political strategist most famous for being a senior strategist for President's Obama's successful 2008 and 2012 presidential bids, and Beth Myers, a top Republican strategist and alumna of Tufts who was the Chief of Staff for Governor Romney and competed against Axelrod as the senior strategist for Governor Romney's 2008 and 2012 presidential bids, they emphasized the work they have done devoting their careers to campaigning. In between their talking points they acknowledged the multitude of research indicating campaigns don't actually move the needle of public opinion—once the primaries happen, people make up their minds. So why then do they still do their jobs? During the question and answer session of Axelrod and Myer's talk, a student asked the question on everyone's mind, "Despite the research, do campaigns even matter?"
The Republican Perspective
Myers started by saying she has to believe that campaigns do matter—at the very least, that campaign messages matter. Candidates with a message do better than those without. She cited Donald Trump's succinct message to "Make America Great Again" that people don fashionably on their hats as a great help to his campaign.
Campaigns are necessary for overcoming any blunders. Myers referred to the infamous empty chair at the Republican National Convention in 2012 as a time she wishes would not have been a part of her campaigning landscape. In comparison, she acknowledged that the Democratic side nicely recovered after President Obama stumbled during the first Presidential Debate in 2012 in Denver by improving his debate techniques for the subsequent debates. She even proclaimed that if President Obama had not gotten his act together before the next debates, Governor Romney would have had a better chance at becoming the next President of the United States. Debates are a very important part of campaigns and important moments in political history.
The Democratic Perspective
Like Myers, Axelrod said that campaigns do matter—but not in the way most people think. Up until a few decades ago, campaign strategies mainly targeted mobilizing people who did not support them. However, there has been a shift in the campaign world to focus on mobilizing the people who are already going to support you. During campaign season, there will be blips where one candidate is leading by a large majority due to some news story; however, those blips dissipate after two weeks. For example, by late Spring 2012, Axelrod felt President Obama had a pretty good control of the campaign. Even with all of the polling sites out there today, President Obama traded within the band of two to four points leading up to election day. This lead went up to seven points after Governor Romney's infamous 47 percent percent video. Then, the Denver debate happened, and the lead dropped to three to four points. Axelrod used this example to show the consistency of those who already support your campaign.
The Student Perspective
Coupling the research on campaign with the opinions from these top senior political strategist, and in the words of Beth Myers—I think I have to believe that campaigns matter. At the very least, I have to believe that campaigns are a baseline. If a candidate did not have a campaign they would do very poorly—they would lack name recognition and the ability to mobilize even their base. It seems a campaign's job is to do damage control and minimize the impact of any missteps.
Being unable to combat external forces during the campaigning process can be detrimental to the success of a candidate. At Tufts, in 2014, there was a contested TCU Presidential election between Andrew Nuñez and Robert Joseph. Judging from the social media and on-campus presence, it seemed Nuñez was going to win the election. However, a few days before the election, Generic Candidate emerged—an online media persona created by a Tufts junior at the time espoused research behind each of the candidates. The presence of Generic Candidate arguably swayed the election by revealing personal attacks on the candidates.
Contested elections make candidates better. While at Tufts last year there was an uncontested election, and our current TCU President Brian Tesser is performing well, there is no question that competing campaigns force candidates to be the best versions of themselves. When Anderson Cooper came to campus last Monday, he echoed this same idea. He said, Secretary Hillary Clinton is a better candidate because she ran against President Obama in 2008. She is an even more improved candidate now because she is running against Senator Bernie Sanders. While competing candidates often have similar intentions to improve the public, their measures to reach those goals are often different.
It is the whole idea of competition that drives American democracy to be the best. Campaigns give you the choice to become an informed citizen and make your voice heard—that's really all we want at the end of the day.
