Danby Persuasive Speech

On Message: Why the Democrats Lost, and Will to Continue to Lose

An HPRgument by Nick Danby

Twenty-four years ago a charismatic and slick governor of Arkansas usurped the presidency after twelve years of Reaganomics and a Republican in the White House. Despite his opponent, sitting President George H. W. Bush having a 90% approval rating following the successful ground invasion of Iraq, Americans’ opinions turned sharply negative when more than a year later in August of 1992, 64% of Americans disapproved of Bush’s performance. Capitalizing on that anger and frustration, Bill Clinton and his campaign strategist James Carville came up with the theme “The economy, stupid.” The phrase, which Carville consistently said over and over again to
the staff, became synonymous with Clinton’s success and the importance of the economy in winning elections. Twenty-four years later, Clinton’s wife, Secretary Hillary Clinton, runs for president with the slogans “I’m With Her” and “Love Trumps Hate.” What happened to the economy? Since Bill Clinton’s 1992 trouncing of Bush, the pivotal role talking about the economy is plays in an election has been pursued by both sides—because it works. In fact, just talking about the issues which effect middle-class Americans works as well. However, in the past ten years, Democrats have begun to falter. Instead of talking about the economy, Democrats (in all races) have begun to focus on two things: cultural issues, or the stupidity of their opponent—both which are surefire ways to lose an election. The first instance of this started in the 2000 presidential election.
After eight years of the tech bubble and Clinton economic prosperity, Vice President Al Gore was destined for the presidency; all he had to do was talk about the economic success of the Clinton administration and how he’d carry that over. Of course, Gore didn’t focus his campaign on the economy and he lost the election. What Gore focused on was his thoughts on George W. Bush’s inept ability to lead and the danger he posed to the country if he became the chief residence of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In essence, Gore downplayed his policy message, and played up how incompetent George Bush was, through speeches, or the famous repetitive sigh during the debates. The same thing occurred in 2004, when then-Senator John Kerry continued to talk about how foolish Bush was and began to belittle his opponents and their voters—despite the odds, Bush won the election
again. It wasn’t until 2008 when Barack Obama promised a platform of change and hope unseen since the days of Robert Kennedy’s 1968 presidential run, that Democrats seized the issues and promised to yield financial prosperity as they took the reins of the economy from the recession-ridden Bush White House.
Consequently, Obama won the election, and won it again in 2012 when he didn’t ridicule Mitt Romney, but instead engaged in a substantive discourse about the economy throughout the election. This brings us to today. How does talking about the economy, and not your thoughts on your opponent lead to you losing an election? Simple. The Rust Belt voters which Clinton lost this year, and the middle-class Americans who have seen their wages stay stagnant while their productivity increase, do not care one ounce about the lack of experience or lack of proper grammar that your opponent has. Politics is selfish; the people care about which candidate is going to help them. Unfortunately for Democrats and Hillary Clinton, she didn’t do that. Hillary Clinton’s message consisted of “I’m With Her” a selfish slogan directed completely towards herself; or, “Love trumps hate”, a slogan which includes her opponent’s surname! Such a slogan is foolish, since President-elect Trump has shown us that there truly is no such thing as bad
press. Therefore, with her slogans which never mentioned one economic plan, or even referenced her goals to resurrect the deteriorating middle class, Ms. Clinton lost the election. However, the 2016 election wasn’t completely dreadful for all Democrats. Enter Jason Kander, a Missouri Democrat who ran for the U.S. Senate against long-time incumbent Roy Blunt. Kander lost this relatively red state by only three percentage points, while Ms. Clinton lost by a devastating 19%. While there was no significant difference between their platforms or party, there was one glaring difference in the way they ran their campaigns. Whereas Kander focused on the economy and touting liberal positions on issues, Ms. Clinton continue to deride Trump. Whereas Ms. Clinton stayed close to the center in order to hopefully win the election, Kander dismissed what he called “the old construct about Blue Dogs” and went for an entirely progressive platform to appeal to the many rural voters in his state. According to Kander, he ran “on a progressive message: economic fairness, college affordability and equality for the L.G.B.T. community.” Kander also emphasized that Democrats shouldn’t hide behind their beliefs, but rather “lean in, full force.” Kander’s story should be a strong note to the Democratic Party. The days of solely focusing a campaign on our opponents, or cultural issues will never lead us to a conclusive result of electoral success. Rather, a campaign that is dedicated to promoting what they believe and embracing progress social and economic issues will yield Democratic majorities in all branches of government. If the Democrats would stop labeling their opponents and voters as the “basket of deplorables”, and instead communicated their message, those same people might just become a “basket of supporters.”