The Republican Hate Trap

It has been a bad week for the Republican Party.

A no good, very bad week.

I am not talking about their failure (once again) to get rid of Obamacare. I am not talking about their failure (once again) to ban gay marriage. This is also not about their victory to eliminate any talk of meaningful gun control in light of another mass killing. The Republican Party's bad week is about how all of those events caused the party's leaders to embrace the typical hate filled white christian majority victim hood that is losing the party voters and any national future.

The Republican party has been fighting the reforms of the New Deal for multiple generations. Their current leaders can not have a meaningful thought about domestic policy without attacking reforms enacted nearly eighty years ago. The programs of the New Deal have been large a part of american society,  removing them would cause a massive  economic crisis. The Republican party has been so invested in dismantling the New Deal,  they have no plan to deal with the catastrophic aftermath of their goals.

These irrational, outdated, tactics infect the current Republican voter outreach strategies. The Affordable Health Care Act was not a perfect law,  far from it. The law did succeed in giving healthcare to more at need Americans. Since the passage of the ACA,  the only action from the elected republicans is to act like petulant children and try to repeal the law. They tried,  and tried,  and tried,  and on and on. There was no plan, only a tantrum. Lower income Americans were beginning to see clearly that the republicans had no interest in helping them. These potential voters were mostly lost to any national campaign by the Republican party.

The need to cater to the outdated and hateful religious right has caused the Republicans to alienate a very powerful and engaged voter group, gay men. The actions of the Supreme Court were long overdue, and many Americans were happy that this embarrassment had been corrected. The response from all the national Republican leaders was predictable, silence or hate. The hate, coming from supposed Christians, was ugly and useless. Christian conservatives always vote in the exact same numbers, and they always vote Republican. If one national Republican realized that gay men tend to be more conservative on fiscal issues,  that person could start to cultivate new voters. Instead the legacy of hate and obstruct stops any movement in bringing in these new, valuable, voters.

Where the Republican hate trap reared its ugly head the most is the aftermath of the Charleston Church massacre. Our government is filled with cowards when it comes to stemming gun violence. The tricky part for the Republicans is they needed a distraction from having to talk about the gun problem in America. The media decided that distraction was going to be the Confederate flag. The hate trap was set, because now Republicans who defended a symbol of hate had to now openly attack it. This was not a good plan to a few deep south Republicans (see Haley Barbour). These politicians defending the Confederate flag kept reminding voters of the parties history of racism. The brain trust that is Sean Hannity even used his tired tactic of false equivalence and demanded rap music be banned along with the Confederate flag. Hannity is whining because he cannot embrace his symbol of hate,  so attacks something else ethnic that he hates. Every single guest on Hannity's radio and television shows will have to defend the Confederate flag and attack rap music. Good bye millennial voters, good job Sean.

The Democratic Party has not been very proactive in creating positive social change. The national leaders usually sit back and wait for social changes to become more viable. This allows the Democrats the luxury to co-opt these movements and be seen as the party of all people. Their biggest asset in claiming the progressive mantle is that the Republicans can not claw out of their hate trap.

Thank God.

RD Kulik

RD is the Head Editor for Seed Sing. He enjoys watching hateful people dig themselves into holes. Fox News is one of his favorite entertainment options. He needs you to write for Seed Sing.

How do you solve a problem like Ohio Part 2: Local Messaging

(feel free to sing along)

Ohio always turns out for the president

But all other elections she is absent

Ohio attracts all the talent

Except in non summer Olympic years

I hate that I have to say it

But I feel very strongly

Ohio may not be an asset to her citizens

How do you solve a problem like Ohio.

Local candidates are rarely experienced, nuanced, political animals.  Many times these candidates are recruited by local parties because they have strong opinions and can articulate these ideas well. The local bosses rely upon state and national support in order to maintain their positions in the local party offices.  It is in the interest of the local political bosses that their candidates toe the national party line  These national ideas do not always serve the best interest of the local voters.  This causes a lack of voter enthusiasm and usually leads to low voter engagement.

The local candidate should create a local message.  National politics is a glamour contest.  The Republican Party has not fared well the last two presidential elections because they could not capture the votes needed in a contest for millions of votes.  The Republicans use divisive and outdated rhetoric, and as a consequence they are not growing their voter base (see here for a deeper explanation). When it comes to local politics, the republicans tend to not be overshadowed by their national figures.  The current divisions in the national Republican Party can be directly linked to the rise of strong, ideological, local movements. The religious right, tea party, and libertarians all began as smaller local movements.  These groups maintain their strength at the local level, and they can rarely find national success.  The lack of success with a bigger voter pool has caused these local movements to radicalize their beliefs and create division within their own national party.  These groups were co-opted by the national party when there was electoral success down on the regional level. Theses groups also can use local electoral advantage (gerrymandered districts, lower voter turnout) that is not possible in a large national election. They cannot create a message that works for a large, diverse, pool of voters.

The Democratic Party needs to take a page from the republican regional success.  The democrats need to create messages that directly speak to the voters they need.  Some of the national party issues should be ignored, and in some cases should be rejected.  Not that long ago there were pro-life democrats.  Those democrats won local elections. Once a locally elected official wants to move on and campaign for higher office, their message should evolve for the voters that are needed for victory. Many would call this flip-flopping. The only people who care about flip-flopping are the media and the opposition. The regular voter does not care.  By evolving the message, there is a greater chance to add voters.  The ability to add voters is more important than any other aspect of a political campaign.

In order for Ohioans to see a more representative state and local government, the parties need to learn and adapt to the voters in these smaller elections. That has not happened because of the national drain that occurs on the homegrown politically talent. When politically minded Ohioans learn to work for themselves, we will see the Ohio problem begin to disappear.

RD Kulik

RD Kulik is the Head Editor for Seed Sing. He wants to solve the media problem by having you write for Seed Sing.

The impotence of the Republican Party's national identity

The Republican Party has equipment that does not work.  Their national identity does not have the ability to bring excitement and stimulate the imagination of the national electorate.  There are a few of the little things they do right.  They can get some of the small things done adequately, get us mildly interested.  However when it comes to the big show, it will end in disaster with a lot of soul searching and finger pointing.

Tired of the impotency metaphor.  Let's move on.

The modern Republican Party has built a brand that works in carved out legislative districts, and states that have local Democratic parties who do not know how to win elections (see the reasons Democrats have failed in state elections here.) I want to address the issue of branding in the local districts. While the republicans worked to get majorities in state houses, and in turn created districts that look like a 4 year old was coloring way out of the lines, the Democratic Party worked on a national messaging and outreach programs.  The republicans created a brand that would cater to a slight majority of the people in these gerrymandered districts.  Their local brand became dependent on political rhetoric that would cause the majority to fear the minority.  Black lives matter, equal pay for women, transgender acceptance, gay marriage, and many more social issues became the fodder for republican attacks. Divide and hate were the core of republican rhetoric. 

While campaigning in the local districts, these wedge issues can help drive necessary voter turnout among certain segments of the white vote.  In addition to creating the majority fear, the local republicans worked very hard to create a narrative of Democratic party voter fraud.

Go ahead and look up cases of actual voter fraud over the last twenty years, I can wait.

Welcome back, I am sure you came across a few cases (the name Ann Coulter definitely came up) but for the most part there is an insignificantly small amount of voter fraud cases.  Why are the republicans so worried? It works in their narrative to protect the right to vote, and to deny the vote at the same time.

These dividing tactics have served the Republican Party very well in the local elections, and helped push their message through a lazy corporate media.  Why do they not work at the national level? The answer is quite simple. They cannot sell their majority fear to a large nation. The urban areas have actual power in the national election.  Very few big states, like New York and California, can give a candidate a sizable electoral advantage (plus Texas is clearly in the national Democratic Party sights, watch out).  The Democratic party has been less than desirable on their social messaging, just look at Hillary Clinton, but they are not publicly speaking out against these emerging minority groups.  When Caitlyn Jenner makes news, Mike Huckabee makes a moronic joke about dressing like a girl to shower with girls in high school. He completely gave up any chance to win a national election with that comment, and he does not care.  It is more important for Mike Huckabee to be appealing to an out of touch voting block who will vote republican no matter what a candidate says.  When the scion of the Duggar clan admits to molesting young girls, including his own sisters, most of the national republicans do not condemn.  Instead they spend their time pushing false equivalence narratives to again protect a voter base that will never abandon them.  I know the argument will arise that you need the out of touch hate groups of the party to win the primary.  Even if that is the case, what you say to appeal to the hate groups will live on through the election (see Romney and 47%).  

I want you to think about what I just explained, the republicans need the out of touch hate groups.  Regardless of what the Fox News pundits say, America has always been socially progressive.  We have a number of amendments giving people rights, and we have only one taking away rights (plus that amendment was repealed so chalk up one more to giving rights). The electorate has expanded for one group when we acknowledge the minority rights. The early Republican Party (Lincoln's party, not Reagan's) saw an influx of voters after the 15th amendment.  The republicans again saw a voter influx after the 19th amendment.  The USA is the melting pot, we want your huddle masses yearning to breathe free.  Where in the hell does intolerance fit into that narrative.  There is no law demanding that anyone get married, so why do you want to deny marriage? There is no law dictating ones gender, so why do you care what someone feels in their soul?  The Republican Party seems to care about these issues, and that is why they are always fighting uphill in the national elections.

This is where my impotence metaphor is valid.  The republicans have all the right equipment, and it works for the most part.  The issue lies in a very important action, the republicans cannot achieve the ultimate satisfaction (the Presidency I mean of course).  Their grass roots of intolerance does not allow for them to reach out to an audience that does not buy the social division.  The Democratic Party has been sleep walking for decades on governance and strategy.  Their greatest advantage is the disdain for the Republican Party. Social division will always drive the disenfranchised urban centers to turn out (usually barely enough) for the elections that matter to them.  Without Ralph Nader, Al Gore would have been the President. George W Bush needed that Democratic Party division in one particular state to win the election with his light hate. Time has moved forward, communication technology has improved, and the Republican Party has continued their policy of division and hate.  

The first Republican to learn that all Americans can vote will be the person the Democrats have not been prepared to face.

RD Kulik

RD Kulik is the Head Editor for Seed Sing.  He is flabbergasted that people who openly hate other Americans will be featured on Meet the Press this Sunday.  Come write for us to express your ideas. Join us.

The Fallacy of Hillary's Inevitability

Hillary Clinton will not be President of the United States.  Hillary Clinton will not even be the Democratic Party nominee.  Will I be the first person to say this? I'll check back in a year.

Hillary Clinton vs the republican clown car.  That is the grand narrative from a broken and lazy national media a year before the final state presidential primaries will be wrapping up. You cannot stop it.  Hillary 2016, I'm with Hillary, Hillary's time, whatever the work shopped slogan may be - IT IS HILLARY'S TURN.

I could have written those exact same words (substitute Hillary 2016 with Hillary 2008) back in 2007.  I was working in the political field at the time, and that was all I heard from my Democratic Party friends.  Hillary had the experienced staff. Hillary had the money network. Hillary had history.  There was no denying her ascendancy.

Problem is that Obama won the primary, and he became the President.  Hillary waited, she is ready, and nothing will stop her now.  I am telling you that 2016 will end exactly as 2008 (not with Obama, but someone different). 

Why am I so sour on Hillary's inevitability.  Because the exact same narrative is playing out, and technology has changed the world.  I will explain.  I have many friends who have gone to work for a "Hillary Clinton Exploratory campaign" over the course of the last year.  I myself have been approached a few times to "work" on a possible presidential campaign.  The experienced Democratic Party talent has all been gobbled up by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Along with the talent, the money has also been holding for the Clinton campaign.  I have a whole trunk full of problems with the talent and money at the states being held out for a national election, and I address those issues here.   The tactic that the Hillary campaign seems to be employing this time around is to gather all the resources and starve out any potential challenger. That seems to be the grand strategic plan.

Hillary Clinton, along with most national political figures, have yet to figure out how to capitalize on free social media platforms.  The current political, and media, models are all built around catering to the Baby Boomer generation.  The Generation Xers and millennials have yet to be considered in a Hillary Clinton campaign, except for lip service on issues that have become politically beneficial(i.e. LBGT rights).  The non-boomers want more.  We want consideration for student debt issues (Hillary is silent), we want government surveillance to be reigned in (Hillary is silent), we want an end to the endless wars (Hillary has not completely owned up to her support for Bush's wars), we want to be considered.  The boomer culture will not relinquish control of the political culture, and Hillary Clinton feeds off of this. She needs to start addressing these issues to create excitement for her presidency.

The boomer only kind of pandering is what caused the non-boomers to flock towards an unproven, and unknown, Barack Obama.  The allure of words like "change" and "hope" spoke to the non-boomers.  We were ready for anyone who was not part of the insipid boomers who have told us how worthless we were. The Hillary 2016 campaign sure as stuff cannot use words like hope and change, especially after the Obama presidency. How is the Clinton campaign going to reach the non-boomers.  Being able to get campaign info through our smart phones was infinitely more valuable than the constant door knockers asking about my feelings on the Democratic Party. I keep hearing more about the canvasing plans for the Hillary 2016 campaign and I cringe. Where is the innovative social media campaigning.  Why have they not learned?  The boomers are still a large voting block, but the gen Xers and millennials can win you the election.

These systemic issues are not the only thing that can derail Hillary Clinton's inevitability.  There is always the stink of the Clinton brand. The Clinton Cash issues, and the history of Bill and Hillary may seem minor to many loyal Democrats, but they always produce smoke.  The lazy media will want a horse race, and they will keep these scandals burning.  An enterprising Democratic Party candidate can take advantage of these scandals, and media unprofessional-ism, to move up in the public perception. 

I have yet to see a candidate who could capitalize on Clinton's shortcomings.  Missouri Governor Jay Nixon had the ability, then he decided to muck up everything about Ferguson. Martin O'Malley will have the same issues with Baltimore. Bernie Sanders has some excitement, but he has a very small percentage of the party and its money (let's pray he does not become another Ralph Nader).  The Hillary Clinton campaign seems inevitable now, but there is a ways to go in this horse race.

Stay tuned.

RD Kulik

RD Kulik is the Creator and Head Editor for Seed Sing. We want your thoughts on the 2016 election.  Write for us.  RD is looking forward to the day boomer culture does not constantly infect his politics.

How do you solve a problem like Ohio Part 1: Technology

(feel free to sing along)

Ohio always turns out for the president

But all other elections she is absent

Ohio attracts all the talent

Except in non summer Olympic years

I hate that I have to say it

But I feel very strongly

Ohio may not be an asset to her citizens

How do you solve a problem like Ohio.

Last week I presented my case for why Ohio voted for President Obama twice, yet has a conservative republican state government.  We know the why, let's figure out how to change this duality in Ohio's voting behaviors.

The primary obstacle that needs to be dealt with is the ineptness of the county parties.  When you have the same people in charge after years of failure, staff replacement is not an option. These party bosses are in their position because they played the right political game a decade ago. These bosses think things like knocking on doors, bowing to the local unions, and swearing fidelity to the national party are the ways to run political elections.  Technology has changed the process over the last ten years.  The rise of social networking has made the idea of door knocking antiquated and wasteful.  

Let's talk about technology.  The first iPhone debuted in 2007, and the public started to enter the world of smartphones.  Twitter came on line in 2006, Facebook allowed non-college students to join in 2006, Instagram started sharing photos in 2010.  The party bosses running the local elections were in charge when the rise of social networking and the ability to share information started to take hold.  There was a new wave of political strategists that understood the power of social media.  These strategists did not respect, or were respected, by the established local political bosses.  The future of political outreach rested in social media, and nobody was taking advantage of this incredible tool.

The rise of the internet allowed political candidates a new, and usually less expensive, portal to voter outreach.  All that was needed for a candidate was a simple website that showed the public what the candidate believed in, and how you could contribute money.  Today we see very few local candidates use the benefit of the internet.  Many local parties refuse to invest the low cost / high reward resources on websites and social media.   They would still rather rely on high resource / low benefit activities like door knocking for voter outreach.  The average dedicated voter would rather spend time on the internet than answering an unknown doorbell pusher.  In 2015 if your doorbell rings it is usually a solicitor, unexpected family member, or a political candidate.  In today's world, none are a welcome presence.

How do we reach the dedicated voter in the twenty-first century?  The smart candidate will first use the free tools available, i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.  The minimal time spent to set up a profile for the social networking sites will pay large dividends in the end.  Instead of knocking on 100 doors on a Saturday, use the time to post and respond to 1000 potential donors.  Do not be bullied into canvasing by other "establishment" candidates.  Build your online profile and watch the support (and money) pour in.  The most fertile voter base for local candidates is the millennial generation.  They are going to be much more excited by a candidate's online presence than they will be impressed by a one sheet paper handed to them on a sunny summer day.

Embracing the idea of online voter outreach will also attract a new, dynamic, type of candidate.  Many people interested in running for local office are new to the political process. Telling them that they have to spreed their spring / summer / fall days knocking on doors is usually a hard sell.  Many winnable candidates will turn down the offer to run for office when the local party bosses start talking about canvasing.  Let's use these candidates greatest assets to get them elected.  Walking door to door is nobody's greatest asset.  We want great ideas and voices to be our leaders.  Social networking gives these ideas and voices a megaphone to needed voters.

The days of mapping out neighborhoods and going door to door is over.  In order to get a truly people elected government you have to find out how to get the people to vote for your ideas.  We do not like to answer unknown front door visitors.  We do get excited by leaders who understand the twenty-first century.  If you want to start to solve the Ohio problem, do not talk to 100 potential voters on a Saturday in September.  Connect with thousands of potential voters every day equipped only with your passion and ideas.

The establishment has lost the way.  You are your own political boss.

RD Kulik

RD Kulik is the creator and Head Editor for Seed Sing.  He wants your ideas to run the country, not the ideas of an antiquated party system.  Contact seedsing.rdk@gmail.com for support on launching your political career.