-
Recent Posts
- Kamala’s brother-in-law fleeced taxpayers for billions to give to left-wing groups and lawyers | New York Post | 8.24. 24
- Coming: Global Political Recalibration
- Clark Judge: FDR, Reagan, and European Nationalism | NatCon Rome 2020
- Lady Gaga Tells All
- Trial Lawyers Use COVID-19 to Prey on America’s Corporations | Real Clear Policy | 12.1.20
Categories
- Book Reviews (12)
- Communication Strategy (23)
- Constitution and Law (14)
- Economic Policy: General (33)
- Economic Policy: Health Care (30)
- Economic Policy: The Great Financial Crisis (15)
- Economic Policy: US Debt Crisis (32)
- Education Policy (1)
- Global Issues (57)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2008 (18)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2012 (43)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2020 (5)
- Political Commentary: General (122)
- Politics & Policy (6)
- Ronald Reagan and the Reagan Administration (11)
- Speeches/Lectures (9)
- Uncategorized (6)
Archives
- September 2024
- March 2023
- July 2022
- April 2022
- December 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- November 2019
- December 2018
- September 2017
- April 2017
- January 2017
- October 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- June 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- June 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- June 2006
- October 2005
- August 2005
- March 2005
- November 2004
- August 2004
- June 2004
- December 2003
- October 2003
- August 2003
- April 2003
- July 2002
- December 2001
- November 2001
- May 2001
- December 2000
- June 2000
- January 1995
- August 1994
- August 1992
- June 1991
- July 1990
- September 1989
- July 1989
- March 1989
Tags
2012 2012 election Benghazi campaign constitution debt debt crisis Democrats economy election 2012 Energy Financial Times fiscal cliff foreign policy Gingrich Global Warming GOP Hoover Digest hughhewitt HughHewitt.com Immigration IRS National Review New York Post New York Times Obama Obamacare Republicans Ricochet Ricochet.com Romney Russia Scandal Senate SOTU speech Supreme Court Syria Tea Party Trump U.S. News Ukraine Wall Street Journal war Washington Times
Gingrich’s Secret Weapon: Incredibly Innovative Campaign | HughHewitt.com | 01.23.12
As they stumble dazed into Florida, the Romney forces had better think hard about what happened in South Carolina. They will want to dismiss Saturday’s results as a fluke. But in the Palmetto State, Newt Gingrich put into harness a totally new strategy of presidential campaigning – some of it visible, some below the surface.
The old strategy started with Richard Nixon’s 1968 run. It emphasized early momentum gained in New Hampshire, highly professional television advertising, limited availability of the candidate to the media, well polled positions articulated in carefully crafted speeches. Later a strong and expensively assembled grassroots organization became part of the mix, as did staging events around single themes, with soundbites and visuals to define the TV and newspaper story.
The idea was to control the message in the television age. As cable came in and its news channels began covering ordinary campaign speeches live and airing longer clips in their evening summary programs, pithy soundbites became less critical, but otherwise, not much changed.
This modern style was almost prohibitively expensive. Television ads cost a fortune to produce and air. The so-called ground game required a vast army of paid organizers. Starting in the early 90s, every nuance of language was subject to extensive polling, getting into far more detail than had ever been tried before. That, too, upped the bill. And as a result essential to the style was a highly disciplined fundraising operation built around major events that brought together thousands of four and five-figure donors.
This year, Mitt Romney has followed this television-age playbook to the last detail. His campaign is vast in its professionally organized reach; careful and competent though unimaginative in its messaging; controlled in every detail of how the candidate is presented; extensive and highly productive in its fundraising; and, at least, in South Carolina, ineffective.
Why?
Newt Gingrich’s surge was not because of bombast in debates, as some have been saying. In South Carolina, Gingrich showed he understood that technology and tastes have transformed the tempo and tolerances of presidential races. Let’s count the ways this year has been different and how Gingrich has molded his campaign to the new reality:
TV advertising: Yes, it remains important. No one is going to yank his ads from the air. But Romney’s dominance in this arena is, obviously, no longer sufficient. The debates have seen to that — but also talk radio and television interviews, particularly, perhaps, on Fox News.
Much as candidates have since Nixon, Romney has tried to keep himself in controlled message environments. His testy interview with Fox’s Bret Baier showed how hard he finds spontaneous give and take. In contrast, of course, Gingrich was a commentator on Fox before announcing for the presidency and a frequent guest on talk radio. His facility in the South Carolina debates reflected, in part, how much practice he has had in these unscripted, politely adversarial formats. If he turned around even the most blatantly gotcha questions with effortless aplomb, it is because he has done it so many times in so many other formats, particularly talk radio. He has experience that Romney can’t match.
Messaging: Yes, Gingrich uses pollsters. But thanks to his exposure to so many spontaneous formats, he has developed a personal feel for what moves the electorate, a feel that polling and focus groups simply cannot give. In a Saturday evening posting on National Review Online’s The Corner, Hugh Hewitt got at this difference when he wrote: “Newt’s greatest contribution to the race has been to demonstrate that the style of political argument that Chris Christie and Paul Ryan <http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288824/ball-floridas-court-now-hugh-hewitt> debuted in the last couple of years actually is not a luxury but a necessity to win hearts and minds in the GOP.”
Fund Raising: Super Pacs have upped the ability of candidates, through independent allies, to tap truly huge dollar donors. Gingrich famously tapped one of these sources just before the New Hampshire balloting. But his use of the Internet has transformed small-dollar donations into at least as big a story in his campaign. The Dean ’04 and Obama ’08 efforts were the first to drink from this spring. But Gingrich is the first Republican to tap deeply into it, too. Web donations allowed him to continue his campaign after the traditional sources of money ran dry. His Florida money bomb could match Romney’s more familiar funding tactics in the current phase of the contest.
Organization: This is one Gingrich advantage that has totally missed commentators. The web makes it possible for a strong message candidate to build an on-the-ground apparatus cheaply and quickly. Where Romney had to spend heavily over years to put his organization in place, Gingrich has the tools to do it quickly and on the cheap.
In other words, Newt Gingrich has emerged as a highly effective campaign innovator. Here is one sure way for Romney to lose this election. Ignore that.