![]() | ![]() |
| Campaign Trail 2004 A True Semantic Differential What You Need to Know Now That the Democrats' Race for the White House Has Started By Jeff Koopersmith May 29, 2003 - NEW YORK (apj.us) -- That's right, folks. Although summer 2003 is imminent, Democratic hopefuls for the 2004 presidential election are running hard -- and perhaps wisely -- to create a "delicious semantic differential" between themselves and their Democrat opponents in preparation for a later battle with George W. Bush. It is already primary season across America. For Democrats, this is a two stage process. First, each candidate has to stand out among the pack of other Democrats who have thus far timidly offered themselves as a better choice than the President. Then, he or she will have to prove to the voters that his or her brand of the presidency is tastier than the current. All this must be accomplished in the seventeen months left before Election Day 2004, when perhaps fifty percent of us will go to the polls and vote on what promises to be a referendum on the Bush Administration -- a show of hands to which most Republican in the nation are harnessed, one way or another. Just what is a semantic differential? Fundamentally, it measures a "difference or distinction in meanings." In politics, however, it also means a divergence or distinction in reputation or character between similar, but not the same, candidates. The Columbia Guide to Standard American English Language uses this example: the plurals of cherub: cherubs, "cute, chubby, babylike angels" (as in Dick Cheney), and cherubim - "fearsome, powerful, eight-foot angels" (as in Osama bin Laden). Or, how about "secret" and "secrete" -- perhaps more apt during this presidential cycle. These are to some extent like homophones. For example: "lead" and "lead", the first meaning "to conduct" and the second, a metal; "sore" and "soar"; and finally "gore" as in the tapered piece of cloth in a skirt, "gore" as in blood and guts, or "Gore" as in winning yet losing presidential candidate -- a candidate "gored" for certain. Thus, in a way, presidential contenders are "highbred semantic differential-seeking homophones" -- especially the Democrats, who have yet to distinguish themselves, semantically, from President George W. Bush. Let us not forget the word "delicious." Yes, the semantic differential must be delicious -- delicious enough to unseat an incumbent president with more than six in ten voters today approving of the job he is doing. I use the word "delicious" instead of, say, "palatable" because at this early juncture, is seems the Democratic Party must offer not merely an edible candidate, but a delectable candidate -- different, and in a very positive way, than the man currently occupying the White House. This is essentially all you have to know about politics to pick the winner: he or she has to be ... well, maybe not anymore -- as we saw in 2000. Perhaps I should restate that as fifty percent, plus one vote -- of the Supreme Court! And pay attention to that "one vote. It is not "fifty-one percent" that a candidate needs to beat President Bush, but fifty percent plus a single vote that determines the winner. Usually. Oh. There is one more thing. Money. The pundits will tell you that whoever gets the Democrat nod will have to win the primary in Iowa, or New Hampshire, or both. Don't believe it. To get the Democratic nomination, the candidate will have to show he or she is capable of boosting the most campaign cash. To put it in a plain and simple term, politics is first about money. This does not mean that candidates with the most money win at all times. If that were the case, and if she is willing, Sen. John Kerry's wife (heiress to the Heinz fortune) could supply the winning recipe. No. It is the power to raise money -- somewhere toward the top of the best fundraisers. It is this that entitles one to the nod. Democrats must face the fact: raising the money necessary to challenge George W. Bush will be an uphill battle for Democrats. The Bush White House is a virtual nuclear-powered vomitory for campaign contributions. Four Democrat candidates, including Rep. Richard Gephardt (MO 3), Sen. Kerry (MA), Gov. Howard Dean (VT), and and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH 10), have already outlined their health care platform -- and that won't help much in the money arena, as much of the elite in America don't want to foot the bill. Thus far, this is only "difference" plank in the Democratic field. All the major Democrat players are shuttling back and forth between the nation's major cities, using Iowa and New Hampshire as hubs. And it's New Hampshire that remains the state to watch -- for the reason that the news media is largely controlled from the East Coast. Journalists covering the Democrats prefer New Hampshire over Iowa for many reasons. First, "caucuses" are not votes. Second, not too many New York or Washington bred-and-raised writers are interested in what Iowans think -- about anything. And that's selling Iowans short. There are a surprising number of geniuses and a few near-billionaires in Iowa, and they aren't all raising pigs. Now, let's look at a few of the players. It appears to me that Sen. Kerry is already making the typical Democrat mistakes. He is running what seems to be a hierarchal campaign, spending lots on "get-out-the-vote" projects, boffo slick printing, newspaper ads, and phone banks. All of these expenditures, in my opinion, are frittering away precious campaign currency. At this point, it is worth mentioning that the best and least expensive way to reach voters remains television, followed by drive-time radio. Period. End of story. This early on, anything else throwing money down the drain. Take printing, for instance: still expensive to produce and expensive to deliver. The best campaign consultants absolutely detest direct mail programs unless the candidate is swimming in money -- or unless the mail is unswervingly aimed at fundraising (to pay their fat retainers, of course). Challengers, especially, have trouble with printed material -- they should stick to the cheapest xerography to supply handouts for precinct walkers and canvassers. Yet candidates love the slick stuff. So managers, despite themselves, go out and print posters, costly brochures, slick banners, buttons, bumper stickers (which few will mar their cars with), and, of course, refrigerator magnets. All that money could be spent on radio and cable television buys. Candidates also love billboards and yard signs. Nothing jumpstarts the ego like seeing your name and likeness on I-95 in 2000 point type. It's not that volunteers and paid minions on the streets are not important. They are. As Karen Hicks, Dean's New Hampshire campaign manager said to ABC News, "It sets the tone for the whole campaign. It's an important backdrop. And can help really buffer against bad news." That's true -- but at what cost? With Democrats, cost is everything. The other mistake Democrats seem to make is "spending late, and spending lots." Republicans have long-ago figured out that the best way to spend any campaign budget is to spend on a gradual upward curve. This is the best prescription -- especially for challengers. In New Hampshire, the winning Democrat would normally need between 50,000 and 75,000 votes to win. But with six perhaps still-weak but hard-driving candidates in the Democratic line-up, it is conceivable that the ultimate winner might need only 30,000 votes, or less, to take that primary. The more votes the better, of course -- the higher the tally, the more seriously the national party will take him (or her). One might argue that 40,000 steak dinners for two might do the trick -- at a cost of less than a million dollars! Now wouldn't that be a "delicious semantic differential?" The major players in New Hampshire, right now, are Gov. Dean and Sen. Kerry. Rep. Gephardt is a hardly-show, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (CT) has yet to find his voice. Sen. John Edwards (SC) is staffing up, but don't expect much from him in New Hampshire -- not yet. He's staying South for awhile. The key to winning the Democrat nod, in my opinion, is to "Come Home to the Party." Here's what I mean: Democrats, under the able but crippling stewardship of the Democratic Leadership Council -- which made certain Bill Clinton co-opted Republican ideas -- long ago abandoned their traditional base: working men and women, minorities, and those will little voice. They did it to win in 1992, and again in 1996. The fallout, however, was extraordinary -- eventually costing Democrats the House and the Senate. Thus far the only Democrat candidate at least trying to come home is Howard Dean. Let us see how long it takes the rest of the candidates to realize that embracing progressive and even liberal ideas may be the only method to create a true distinction between the Democrat candidate and George W. Bush. It seems to me that embracing simple ideas -- for example, taking care of each other, shoring up our public schools, assuring workers a true living wage, and using tough love instead of tough hate to solve some international conflicts -- may just be a winner. If history tells us anything, it tells us the pendulum swings. No matter how well or evil-intended, programs being implemented by ultra-conservative Republicans today may look rancid tomorrow. But if you do not stand for something -- and something unique when that day comes - you'll be overlooked as just another fading chapter in American history. JEFF KOOPERSMITH is a political consultant, opinion research authority, policy analyst, and self-described "renegade lobbyist." Here's the current political schedule from now until Election Day 2004, courtesy of abcnews.com. It will, of course, change. You can go to "The Note" for updates.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Read our privacy policy. Contact us. Operating software by Underwriters Digital Research. Data development by Gaudette & Associates. ISSN No. 1523-1690 | ![]() ![]() | ||