Skip to content

The 2016 presidential election took nearly everyone by surprise, with political neophyte Donald Trump winning over Hillary Clinton, one of the most well-known political figures ever. A panel of GSPM adjunct faculty, who are also leading campaign strategists with several presidential campaigns on their resumes, weighed in on what happened and what comes next in the worlds of campaigning and political consulting.

The biggest change in the 2016 cycle was the explosion of content that campaigns needed to produce to stay competitive. “Politics has become very personal and the ways to consume content have too, and the more ways there are to consume content the more content there needs to be,” said Evan Tracey, Political Management Adjunct Professor and Senior Vice President at the political advertising firm National Media Research, Planning, and Placement.

Peter Fenn, a long-time media consultant, says the old model of big media buys are coming to an end. “I call paid media now ‘pay more get less’ media. We’re in a situation where fewer and fewer people are watching television commercials and it’s more about targeting and figuring out where undecided voters are and appealing to them personally,” he said. He noted that data analytics and consumer segmentation are going to drive campaign strategy to an ever-larger extent.

For another expert, the need to understand national dynamics was key. “You needed to be a master of the modern media environment to be a successful candidate,” said Adjunct Professor Suzanne Zurn, founder of the Three Lines Group. She lamented that part of that understanding was that in an increasingly polarized society, factual accuracy was less important than in the past.

That understanding of the media environment allowed Trump, who frequently eschewed conservative policy principles and campaign norms, to thrive. Mark Mellman, a Democratic strategist, noted that Trump was able to build a coalition by bringing together three strands of conservative thought: people’s aversion to government, change, and difference. A general political malaise helped the outsider candidate as well. “People didn’t think he would win, so he was a good protest vote,” said Mellman. Katie Packer, who ran a Republican SuperPAC opposed to the Trump campaign, noted that none of the other candidates were willing or able to stop the New Yorker’s momentum. “In campaigns, opponents don't just die people kill them, metaphorically of course,” she said.

In addition to offering a post-mortem of the past, the panelists also gave some advice to students just starting their political careers. “When you start in politics you should be knocking on doors" said Fenn. “And when you get older you should keep doing it. I love knocking on doors." He also cautioned against the caricature of the wealthy campaign consultant. “Don't go into political consulting to get rich. You can make money sure, but you gotta love it in order to succeed.”

A host of changes to politics over the last two decades, from redistricting and gerrymandering to modifications of campaign finance laws, have decreased incentives to govern effectively said  one current member and three former members of Congress at an event Wednesday at the George Washington University.

Those changes and their consequences have given rise to a series of never-ending purity tests, says former Rep. Al Wynn (D-Md.). “I came into politics with the understanding that you compromise to get things done….,” Mr. Wynn said. “As a result of redistricting, you end up with inter-party fights, and I view it as a fight between ideological members and pragmatic centrist candidates.”

Mr. Wynn added that SuperPACs and other outside groups made the changes worse with outsized spending and advertising campaigns that seek to nationalize every race, rather than focusing on local issues.

Mr. Wynn was among four panelists at the event co-hosted by GW’s Graduate School of Political Management and the U.S. Association of Former Member of Congress. Also on the panel were former Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), B.S. ‘63, former Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)  and Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.).

Read more at GW Today.

(apologies to George Gershwin and Gene Kelly)

By Prof. Michael Cornfield

June 5, 2017

My Facebook reaction to the president’s announcement to exit the Paris climate agreement last Thursday was this:

GSPM grad Travis Taylor was skeptical:

Travis is right about the low priority Americans accord the environment as a campaign issue. A Reuters/IPSOS poll concluded just before the announcement was in keeping with the trend; environment was selected at the top issue by a mere 3% of voters, far below the top three of economy/jobs (20%), health care (18%), and terrorism (16%).

But I think Trump gave the issue a boost in salience. He is by far the most famous person on earth, maybe in human history; he gets more free media coverage than the next 1,000 people combined. His spotlight moves quickly from topic to topic, but the Paris exit was declared from the Rose Garden, it was a binary decision everyone understands, and the time frame for it is four years, not decades (the eco-time frame) or one day (the @realdonaldtrump time frame).

So I think the announcement sets off a messaging contest in sync with the 2018 and 2020 elections. Good issue positioning entails linking across standard categories. The battle will be over Paris AND job creation (especially job loss to foreign countries, Trump’s issue citadel), Paris AND energy prices (gas, of course, but also electric) and even Paris AND quality of life (hazards and disasters) in the battleground states and districts where voters live. We’ve already seen Dominion Power becoming an issue in the 2017 Virginia primaries.

Behind the messaging, this will be a battle of corporate clout: fossil-fuels against renewables, inland against coastal real estate. The fossil inlanders have a tremendous head start in the form of Koch-backed Americans For Prosperity (AFP) and its related influence organizations. By 2015, AFP had a $150 million yearly budget, 500 paid staffers including directors in 34 states, and 2.4 million activists advocating, among other things, a “No Climate Tax” pledge taken by three-fifths of GOP House members and over half of GOP Senate members in the 113th Congress (2013-2014).

The opposition to Trump’s announcement voiced by CEOs of big corporations, Michael Bloomberg, the governors of California, New York, and Washington state, and numerous mayors is a significant reaction. That’s all it is for now.

Deep dives into one’s personal life, hours on the road or the phone drumming up volunteer or financial support, and the understanding that most of the candidates that start a campaign finish it with a concession speech. Running for office is difficult both mentally and physically, so why do people do it and what should they know in advance?

At the Graduate School of Political Management, our students will be able to hear why, and everything that momentous decision entails in PMGT 6434, Running For Office, taught by former U.S. Rep. Dan Maffei, D-N.Y.

In addition to being a candidate, Maffei served as a communications strategist and spokesperson in the halls of Congress and on the campaign trail. Rounding out his resume was a stretch as a television news reporter and producer. His 360-degree view of the campaign process is part of the reason why our school is so thrilled to have him leading this course.

“’The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,’ proclaims Theodore Roosevelt. Having seen politics from so many viewpoints, I can communicate to the student how different it is to be the one with the name on the ballot. Political theory and well laid plans fly out the window as ideals are challenged and egos assaulted,” said Maffei.

Maffei’s course uses a series of in-class simulations to take students through key campaign milestones, such as an announcement of one’s candidacy, a stump speech, and a campaign contribution solicitation. Since the unexpected is to be expected in politics, Maffei’s class will also have to determine a communications strategy to debunk an inaccurate news story and hold a “damage control” press conference.

Maffei added, “Plans for governmental change and sophisticated policy ideas are irrelevant if their advocates can not win elections or – more likely given today’s toxic political atmosphere – refuse to ever run for office. Through personal accounts of and by politicians, readings on critical aspects of real world politics, and intense self-examination, group discussion and practice exercises, I will give students a sense of what it is like and what is needed to run, win, and hold political office.”

At the end of the course students should be able to understand the decision-making process behind a run, the components of a modern campaign, the purpose behind any effective candidate, and the key personality traits needed to succeed amid the intense pressures of a political campaign. Starting a run with that knowledge should give our prospective candidates and campaign managers a head start over the competition.