All Democrats Would Do Well to Read This (Or, "How 538 Nails It")

Pirate Smile

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-07-08 09:07 AM
Original message

All Democrats Would Do Well to Read This (Or, "How 538 Nails It")

Edited on Sun Sep-07-08 09:15 AM by Pirate Smile

All Democrats Would Do Well to Read This (Or, "How 538 Nails It")

by AndrewMC
Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:37:13 AM PDT

Apologies for the long post, I know that's not the current norm. :)

Browsing around the tubes this morning, waiting for my 16-month to wake up so we can go grocery shopping, I came across this piece of wisdom from FiveThirtyEight, that speaks well to our current obsession with John McCain's VP pick.

As usual, Sean Quinn nails it on the head, and this ought to be a wake-up call for all Democrats, all progressives, and all Kossacks (written in a Venn-diagramy sort of way).

Because whatever else that Veep pick has done, it has derailed our central message, causing us to lose focus, lose message, and send ourselves into a potentially downward spiral from which we might not recover.

Follow me.

AndrewMC's diary :: ::

Given FiveThirtyEight's origins, it isn't surprising that Quinn uses a sports analogy in describing the veep pick, when he says:

"(McCain's VP Pick) Is Not A Hockey Mom"

Hockey's a great way to look at politics. It has both finesse and brutality, and it take a bit of both to win.

But there's a fundamental, unwritten rule to that brutality--the person who hits back gets the penalty. A smart team takes its licks, focuses on the puck, and understands that sooner or later the other team will get caught in its mistakes.

Sure, the Republicans are having a golden run of not getting caught. But that is starting to turn. And, as in hockey, that turn can be helped along. But, as in hockey--hitting back draws unwanted attention.

This is the case with the VP pick.

Quinn says,

Initiators win, reactors lose. Expect adversity, because it's built in. The fourth-line, no-scoring-talent, pest agitators (or as we now call them, "energy guys") have a specific job. Skate in, take a cheap shot, make it after the whistle. Make it against the rules. Stir something up. Put a wet glove in the other guy's face and rub it. Get the outrage flowing. Get the opponent not thinking about the game, get them thinking about your shenanigans. And what happens? The "victimized" team loses its composure, hitting back. The guy who hits second is always the guy who goes to the penalty box.

So true. I remember the inestimable Chico Resch, of the New York Islanders. He played goalie for many years, helping the Isles to the Stanley Cup in 1980. I had the honor of watching him, live, against the Flyers in the Stanley Cup playoffs in 1975. Great game.

He had a tactic he'd use on players as they skated past his box. Every once in a while he take his stick and give the opponent a hit on the legs as they skated by. Nothing hard, nothing to knock someone over. But annoying.
I was a hockey newbie--young--back then. The first time I saw that live I asked my Dad "why does he keep doing that?" And my Dad said "just watch."

And sure as rain, eventually some idiot lost his cool and went after Resch, swinging. Guess who ended up in the box?

Watching (McCain's VP pick) this week, and the reaction to her by both sides, and all the talk of hockey mommery, I realized that this is who she is. She skates into the corner, throws up an elbow, and the Democrats cry: "Foul!" Hey! She said Obama has never passed a major bill � this is an objective lie! Hey! She ridiculed community organizing the day after Service was the theme! Technically people should punish her by not voting for her over this infraction!

It�s whining, and whiners hit back second and go to the penalty box on top of it.

Think Craig Berube,. Think Tie Domi but without the scoring skills. Their purpose was to stir up trouble, not score goals.

Think politics.

In the hockey analogy, wouldn�t get within a thousand miles of an NHL All-Star Game because she�s not a scoring talent. She�s a role player, an emotion-rouser. Emotion messes with the chalkboard-drawn game plan and thus achieves a specific strategic objective. She can make game-changing agitation plays that rouse her home team and provoke the other side into counterattacks that � 100% of the time � end up punishing the team who hits back. Democrats would be smart to understand her as such, and I see a lot of reaction that doesn't seem to grasp what (McCain's VP pick) is doing and the value she's providing. I see a lot of Democrats taking a lot of bait.

Yes. Yes, yes yes. Alot of Democrats are taking cheap bait. They've taken an elbow to the face when the ref wasn't looking, and have come back swinging.

Now the ref is looking.

Except:

This applies more to Democratic surrogates than it does to the top-ticket duo. Joe Biden had the smart response yesterday � naming the behavior � expecting it, and then riding through without taking the bait:

"It was about how well placed -- and boy she is good -- how a left jab can be stuck pretty nice. It�s about how Barack Obama is such a bad guy."

And that�s all he says of antics. Name the behavior, even praising the skill with which the agitation was attempted, and then back to focus. It's "the economy, stupid."

As Quinn points out, though, a good enforcer plays tandem to a high-profile player. I think of Marty McSorely and Wayne Gretzky, who are the classic examples. McSorely made sure that nobody interfered with Gretzky getting to the goal. Without one, it would be hard to have the other.

Understanding McSorely-Gretzky helps us know how to coach and play in this game. Start by understanding that McCain's VP choice is a goon and a thug . McCain threw an elbow to take our eye off the puck, hoping he could advance that puck a bit down-rink.

So far, it's worked. Is McCain's VP choice bad? Sure. But we don't need her to go to the penalty box in order to win the game. McCain threw the elbow, now the American public is going to referee the follow-up. Now that their attention is drawn to that corner of the rink, they'll be watching to see what happens next. Frankly, most Americans don't give a rat's ass about Troopergate, or any of the other scandals surrounding McCain's VP pick. Should they? Probably. But the fact is they don't.

Now, do we spend our energy trying to make them care? When most of them are trying to pay mortgages, pay for college, or just simply eat a decent meal?

Or do we put our focus on the puck?

Let's make sure that what happens next keeps our focus where it should be.

I played water polo at a fairly high level for many years. This analogy works there, too. All kinds of cheap shots take place under the water. After the first one happens, the ref turns hir head.

Let's keep our eyes on the puck, and the goal. We got thrown an elbow. Americans will read that play based on how we react.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/7/75712/01778/66/589788