, we have to remember that turnout is about execution. Studies show that one knock on the door within 72 hours of the election increases the propensity to turn out by 12.5% -- a second knock, almost as much. One of the most powerful messages in the upcoming election is: "I won't get off your porch until you vote." Field operations must have a bigger priority this cycle than ever before..
Bush and the Republicans created an economic disaster in America. It will take a long time to clean that mess up. We must frame every discussion in terms of the choice between the failed policies that got us here, and our policies for the future.
That means two things:
- First, we have to deliver. Until last week, the Republican hoped their winning narrative would be that Democrats can't deliver - that Washington is gridlocked. Passage of health care and student loan reform helped closed the book on that story. But we have to continue delivering - not just talking.
- And, of course, by Election Day, people need to see clear evidence -- even glimmers -- that those policies are working in their own lives and those of their neighbors. Reports and pronouncements from Washington won't be enough..
The narrative is very simple. And it has the enormous advantage of being 100% true. The recklessness of the big Wall Street Banks and their Republican allies cost seven million Americans their jobs. Democrats want to hold the big Wall Street Banks accountable and throw out the Republican policies that put the interests of the Banks and other special interests like health insurance companies ahead of the public interest.
It will be great if we can point to new laws to hold the big Wall Street Banks accountable. But it is critical that we draw a clear distinction between our positions and the interests of Wall Street. Wall Street - and the overgrown financial sector in general - should always be the chief villain in our political narrative.
Rule #5: The outcome of midterm elections are hugely dependent on the popularity of the President. History shows that whether Members of Congress vote with him or not, his popularity impacts the ambient level of their support. That means that Members of Congress have an enormous personal political interest in passing his agenda. And many need to remember that if the political tide goes out, it is those in the shallowest political water who will be left aground.
Rule #6: In midterm elections, whichever party nationalizes the contest almost always wins. In 2002, the Democrats made the giant mistake of trying to "localize" the midterms -- to focus on local issues -- while Republicans generated a national narrative. Republicans expanded their margins in the House and re-took control of the Senate. A national narrative is key to victory.
Rule #7: No flip-flops. But that doesn't mean that the qualities of individual candidates aren't important. Democratic Members of Congress need to remember the story of John Kerry's Presidential campaign. Swing voters agreed with Kerry on the issues. But the Republicans convinced them (incorrectly) that he was a "flip-flopper" -- that he had "voted for it before he voted against it" -- that he didn't have a moral center. Commitment is an independent variable in politics and it is especially important to swing voters -- who by definition are not strongly wedded to partisan positions. When people say they hate "typical politicians" they mean they hate candidates who put a finger in the air to test the political winds before they tell you where they stand. They want public officials who have core beliefs and stand up for them.
That's why it was so stupid for some Democrats who had voted for the health care reform bill in the first House vote last year to vote against it this time. Their new vote won't matter to hardcore "Obamacare" haters - the Republicans will say they voted for it anyway. But for swing voters their flip-flop is disastrous. The Republicans will run ad after ad reminding swings that Congressman X is a flip-flopper. And of course - in the bargain - their vote served to demobilize their base and will ultimately depress Democratic turnout. Not so smart.
Rule #8: Stay on the offensive. Throughout the next six months, Democrats must stay on offense. We must go after Republicans for the failed policies of the past that led to the recession. We must stay on the offense campaigning for our solutions. They will obstruct and do everything they can to create diversion (e.g. death panels) and generate fear. We can't take their bait.
Rule #9: Keep winning. People vote for - and turn out for - winners not losers. The bandwagon is also a critical independent variable. Winning, by itself, increases candidate favorability. The progressive bandwagon is now out of the mud and rolling again. We can't let up. We have to press our advantage to win on financial reform, fixing the broken immigration system, clean energy and jobs - as well as appointments and remaking education reform. Process won't matter at all to voters. Even the "process" debates of the last few weeks have already begun to fade. No one cares about how something is done... only that it is done and how it affects them.
Rule #10: It's the economy, stupid. In the end the most important variable in affecting the midterm elections will be people's personal perception of whether the economy is improving for them and their families. The Administration and Congress must focus like a laser on creating jobs - even at the expense of higher short-term federal deficits. And voters need to see Democrats fighting for jobs with every ounce of their energy.
Everything that can be done, should be done, but small-ball "jobs" initiatives are not likely to be enough. America needs another major signature jobs initiative like Congressman George Miller's proposal to directly create a million additional jobs.
A major jobs initiative is not only good politics - it is absolutely good economics. The only way to kickstart broadly-shared economic prosperity is to assure that there are enough jobs that pay a good living wage. "Top-down" simply won't work.
A lot of political water will flow under the bridge between now and November 2nd. In large measure the outcome of the midterm elections is in our hands. If Democrats do what we need to do, there is no question that we have the ability to achieve our goals and set the stage for continued progressive success in the two years leading up to the Presidential election in 2012.
-
-The days of “one man rules” are dying fast. Some suggest the days of “one woman rules” are coming fast. Most likely, the future will be characterized by a middle ground where enlightened leadership will be leadership that actively takes into account the positions of many groups within an organization.
Stakeholder analysis is the systematic identification of key stakeholders and appraisal of their influence and posture towards implementation of high-growth and sustainability strategies. This form of “organizational radar” is necessary at the early stages in developing these strategies, in order to avoid wasting resources on a strategy that key stakeholders will not support.
For example, Child Trends, Inc. is a non-profit organization that analyzes data on the well-being of children and youth. With a budget of nearly $3 million from government funds, foundations and publication revenues, the organization prepares papers for key Congressional Committees and policy makers in the US at the federal level.
When asked who the stakeholders were for their organization, we were told that the 100 leading federal policy makers were the key stakeholders. Our own analysis of their research findings shows that the true stakeholders are the 50 million people in the US who either are children, have children, or are likely to be very interested in the well-being of children. An organization with 100 stakeholders will have a completely different business model and different breakthrough potential than an organization with 50 million.
Just ask the people at the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), which has 32 million members with over 500,000 persons volunteering on a regular basis. This is an organization that knows who its stakeholders are – and it is not the 100 leading policy makers on issues affecting the senior population.
Stakeholder analysis is also very helpful in reformulating and improving high-growth strategies in order to win the approval of key stakeholders who have objections. Defining the key stakeholders as broadly as possible will open up not only areas of potential, but also new approaches to rapidly expanding the capacity and capability of your organization.
Organizations usually define their stakeholders as owners – people occupying powerful positions within the organization, or people with the power to affect the organization’s costs and revenues significantly. Stakeholders may be internal or external. This narrow, stifling view of stakeholders may have been appropriate before the world became linked, or at least linkable, via the Internet. It is now less appropriate.
Defining who the key stakeholders are is an art. But, we do know that most mistakes are made by defining stakeholders too narrowly. Usually, stakeholders are defined by their power within the organization. We expand the term stakeholders to include people who are currently outside of your organization who could become an important part of your business model if you achieved breakthrough growth. Stakeholders are those interested in and capable of significantly contributing to (or creating barriers to) your organization implementing high-growth strategies and improving its organizational capacity.
Another example comes to mind of how a progressive organization defined its stakeholders far too narrowly. Upon the proper identification of the broader range of its actual stakeholders, it reversed a key policy and embarked on a very successful high-growth strategy.
Presumably, he was trying to keep his company’s products consistent with those whole milk coffee products he experienced in Italy and upon which he modeled his company. By refusing to sell skim and non-fat milk in his products, he may have been faithful to the tradition upon which the Starbucks product was based, but he ignored the important stakeholder