Prosper Group Think

Why Mitch Daniels won- and what the party should learn from it

I'm probably the last blogger in Indiana to get around to this subject, but I think I've benefited from a few months of reflection and discussion from Republicans all over the country.  In addition, I am inspired by my trip out to CPAC in DC last week. I heard a lot of Mitch chatter from Michaganders to New Hampshirites to a couple of guys from Canada.  And I was amazed they knew about the RV, heard about his television commercials, and could talk about his policy positions.

Here's what we know about the sheer awesomeness of Mitch's victory...

Mitch Daniels won more votes than any candidate for any office in Indiana- ever.  (I can't access the Indy Star archives of this but view the quote here)

Mitch Daniels won by 18 POINTS in a year when a Democrat Indiana for the first time since 1964.

I think these two factors alone negate the Democrat spin on things.  Generally, their spin is that their candidate (Jill Long Thompson) was so crappy that nearly anyone could have defeated her.  But a crappy Governor facing an even crappier candidate would not have won by 18 points or broken vote records.  The fact is that Mitch Daniels would have beaten nearly anyone who ran.  

But I think most commentary has been way off.  Here's why I think Mitch won and what we should learn from it.

Be honest with the voters.

I loved Mitch's first television advertisement of the 2008 campaign.  It was remarkably honest for a political commercial and, in the end, set a great tone for his campaign.  I was told later that, for this particular commercial, Mitch did only one take- with no notes.

Do what you say you are going to do- and don't be afraid of the media.

Mitch Daniels told voters in 2004 that he was going to balance the budget.  Despite wholesale opposition from the Democrats in the Statehouse he did.

Mitch Daniels told voters he was going to try some innovative ideas to get the state back on solid footing.  He did, particularly with very controversial proposals like Major Moves and Daylight Savings Time.

In the end, this is why I believe state Republicans have performed remarkably well compared to their federal counterparts.  While in states like Ohio, Republicans have lost majorities in the House and Senate, lost all of the statewides, and lost the Governor's office Indiana has performed well.  While Republicans on the federal level got too scared to be conservative, Republicans in Indiana were balancing budgets, cutting state government, and charting a conservative course.  They kept the base happy and were able to appeal to centrists who appreciate the fiscal responsibility.

Republicans purged themselves so Democrats didn't need to.

Another reason Mitch performed well on Election Day in 2008 was because Republicans purged themselves of their own black sheep instead of protecting them.  While on the federal level, Speaker Hastert protected Foley and other Republicans and President Bush campaigned for Arlen Specter, Republicans in Indiana did the opposite.  Republicans primaried some of the worst like the Senate Republican leadership (defeated 3 Senate leaders in 3 consecutive elections).  House Republicans like Reps. Ulmer and Budack were defeated.  So when Election Day came around, Indiana state Republicans couldn't be lumped in with the lethargic leadership of the national Republican Party.

Mitch Daniels had a vision and let Hoosiers know he would be advancing even more in his next term.

Mitch chose no wimpy fights, no marginal improvements.  He went after the big issues.  This may be closely related to an earlier point but I think it deserves some ink of its own.  When Republicans developed their "change-lite" agenda on the federal level for 2008 it was a yawner.  Mitch Daniels, however, was talking about more groundbreaking reforms like local government restructuring and tax rebates.  He had just finished passing landmark property tax reform.  He proposed sweeping educational programs as well.  He was bold.  He was a leader.  And he was rewarded for it.

I don't know the Governor very well.  We talk from time to time at Republican events.  My understanding is that very few people really KNOW him.  So I don't know, and I'm not sure anyone knows, what his plans are after he is done as Governor.  But whether he runs for President or not, Republicans need to be looking to Mitch to learn how to chart a course back into power.  

My conspiracy rings true? Skillman and Palin together again...

Last week, I posted a conspiracy theory about why Mitch Daniels left it to Becky Skillman to work the 25,000- strong McCain-Palin rally.  I argued that the Guv may have deliberately chosen not to attend the rally in order to give Becky Skillman a chance to build momentum for a future statewide campaign.

I think that my suspicions have been confirmed.  From the Post-Tribune:

Daniels canceled a slated Oct. 17 appearance with Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in Noblesville, citing a scheduling conflict. And he sent Lt. Gov. Becky Skillman to introduce Palin again Saturday in Fort Wayne.

“They make a good team,” Daniels said of Skillman and Palin. “And I don’t want to change my schedule at the last second.” (emphasis mine).

At the Fort Wayne rally, Skillman herself was introduced by Indiana GOP grassroots favorite Dan Coats and then introduced Palin.

I've acquired the photos below from a rally attendee.  Enjoy.

What really happened at the Verizon Wireless Center

We've spent days talking about the size of the crowd and the nature of Palin's speech last week in Noblesville.  Both were impressive.  But, in my humble opinion, a larger story emerges from the event with implications beyond the 2008 Election.

Did Mitch Daniels deliberately miss the event in order to give LG Becky Skillman a more significant role?  Was her resounding introduction of Sarah Palin a preview of what we should expect to see in 2010 or 2012?

It struck me early on that it didn't make sense for Mitch Daniels not to attend.  I know Daniels was attending another event, but where else could he have interacted with 25,000 excited grassroots activists of his own party?  No better time than last week's Palin event exists to motivate the Party to work hard to "Get out the Vote" in these last few weeks.  The Mitch campaign wasn't absent.  His RV was there and the team worked the crowd effectively (and I don't criticize them for their decision- his folks are a lot smarter than me).

Instead, Becky Skillman could be seen working the crowd before and after the event.  She gave a resounding speech introducing Palin.  Perhaps one of the best I've hear from her.  She stood by Palin on the podium after the speech while attendees pressed themselves to shake her hand.

If Daniels would have attended he would have by necessity been a speaker at the event.  Skillman may not have spoken at all or would have simply been a prelude to his speech.  But with him gone, Skillman was as close to the main event as she could have been.  Was it deliberate?

I spoke with a couple of individuals close to Skillman in the days after the event.  No one specifically suggested that this was a planned conspiracy, but neither was it denied.  Everyone held the universal opinion that it was a great moment for her as she considers her future plans.

I've asked Skillman about her plans and it's clear she would rather not entertain the issue so early, but if she was planning to run for statewide office she got a great start last week.

When in doubt: scare seniors

Republicans have their share of messages that are overused.  But one of the worst of all overused campaign attacks is the "Republicans are going to take your social security away" scare tactic.  Rep. Baron Hill is engaging in it without fear.

From The HoosierPundit:

As I noted on Sunday, the gloves have come off. Mike Sodrel's surge in recent polling has terrified Baron Hill and his liberal allies in Washington, and has spurred them to return to the same old negative campaigning we saw in 2006.

Mike Sodrel, as I noted before, made a proposal to avoid such unpleasantness, but was rudely rebuffednegative ads work.

Following their opening salvo of negative mail containing lies about the Fair Tax, Baron's allies in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have put forward this ad:

Let's fact check this, shall we?

First of all, the ad takes a quote from a recent radio appearance by Sodrel out of context. Sodrel's interview included a lengthy discussion of the many challenges facing our economy, ranging from the price of gasoline to issues with the housing sector and the stock market. Sodrel's exact answer was that "In relation to the world, I think that, yeah, the U.S. economy is fundamentally in good shape. It's not going to stay that way long if we don't make some serious adjustments."

That wouldn't make for a very good soundbyte, though, would it? Nope, nor would it make for a good 30-second attack spot. So Mike Sodrel's answer had to be "reduced" and "tweaked" a bit, and then taken out of context to boot. The entire interview is available on the radio station's website; you can download it here.

Second, it's very in vogue for politicians to say that the fundamentals of the economy are strong or in good shape. John McCain did so (and was similarly misquoted) right before Sodrel did here (the above statement was in response to a question about what McCain had said), and Barack Obama did so as late as this Monday. McCain and Sodrel, at least, didn't make such statements after the stock market started to really dive and right as it saw its largest plunge in history on the same day Obama said this:

Sodrel, like McCain, qualified his statement with a sober and realistic assessment of the situation. Both saw their opponents omit the full quote in favor of a short soundbyte for misleading 30-second attack ads (fair is fair; the same has been done to Obama, but only inreference to his earlier criticism of McCain).

Third, the ad repeats an old and discredited assertion that Mike Sodrel supports the privatization of Social Security. An ad in 2006 claiming just this was so discredited and untrue that there were calls for it to be pulled from the air. The very Courier-Journal article cited in the ad as the source of Sodrel's position says that this is untrue. Back in 2006, I looked the article up. The text of it is available here. Mike Sodrel does not support the privatization of Social Security.

Fourth, the ad says that Sodrel supports "cutting guaranteed benefits." As the CJ article cited also clearly notes, this is not the case. The article notes that Sodrel doesn't favor any proposal that would cause a reduction in benefits. Indeed, it specifically notes he was concerned (and opposed) to such reductions.

Baron Hill and the DCCC love to throw around the notion that Mike Sodrel supports privatizing Social Security. It's a game of misdirection, because Baron Hill (a former employee of investment firm Merrill Lynch) has stated repeatedly that he supports investing Social Security funds in the market to obtain a higher rate of return.

In 2004, Baron was caught on tape saying that he favored investing Social Security in the stock market. I saved this from when somebody put it on YouTube during the last campaign.

Imagine how Social Security would be fairing today, after that 777 point record dive on Monday.

But that was 2004, and this is 2008, you say. You'd be right.

Which is why it is just shocking that Baron Hill, just back in August of this year, said it again:

Not only did Baron say that he favored investing Social Security, he said that he was attending private, secret meetings to "fix" Social Security after the election.

Baron proclaimed that "everything is on the table" as a part of those secretive closed-door, backroom meetings.

And, for Baron, everything means everything, including raising payroll taxes and increasing the retirement age. Everything probably also includes things like benefit cuts.

In short, by the Democrats' own definitions as described in their advertisements, not only Baron Hill supports privatizing Social Security and Mike Sodrel does not, but Baron Hill also supports things like payroll tax hikes and increases in the retirement age.

When it comes to Social Security, for Baron Hill, "Everything is on the table."

by Baron Hill. A positive campaign wouldn't suit Baron it seems; he says that

Skillman v Oxley Continued...

OK, I'm tired of summarizing everything, so here is something better.

• Oxley was the first one to directly confront the opponent.  He attacks Skillman for saying Daniels administration inherited a $600,000,000 deficit.  "Our law requires a balanced budget, so how could we have a deficit?" he claims.  I'm sorry Mr. Oxley, but that's just ignorant.  The O'Bannon and Kernan administration have long been fingered for using "fuzzy math" to declare a balanced budget.  I'm so proud of JLT for finding the only person in Indiana more clueless than she is.
• Oxley also said that if there was a deficit, she was on the Finance Committee while in the Senate so she voted for the budget.  So there!!! AHA!! GOTCHA!!
• I'm always struck by the absolute animosity the Democrats have towards Mitch Daniels and Becky Skillman.  I've long decided that it is a result of the fact that Daniels has dominated Indiana politics with his agenda.  He's moved forward without asking Pat Bauer for permission.  Good for him and good for Indiana.
• I'm simultaneously impressed and disappointed in Becky Skillman for not fighting back against Oxley's attacks.  She's classy.  I wouldn't have been.  See the opening, Becky and take it.  You are smarter than this joker.
• Dennie Oxley and JLT seem to have surrounded themselves with a bunch of staffers that look pissed all the time.  They stood in a straight line against the wall the whole time and seemed very unhappy to be here.  Come on folks, get excited about your candidate and act like you are excited about them.  But then again, maybe they are not.
• BTW, how many times will Dennie Oxley say he's from a small town?  He needs to get the chip off his shoulder.

The winner today:  The Indiana State Fair.  It was a beautiful day and having the LG debate here gives attention to the event- one of the premier in the nation.

The loser:  Whoever writes rules for these debates.  They are clearly made in order to make sure they are boring.

As for the candidates?  Oxley was on the attack.  I don't think he landed a firm punch, but he did make his attempts.  Skillman stuck to her message and didn't respond to Oxley.  That kept the debate rather mild and about the future- despite Oxleys attempt to paint it so grim.

Skillman v. Oxley: Fairground Fight 2008

You can always count on Prosper Group to be in the middle of the action.  Today we are here to see Becky Skillman demonstrate again why she's a key partner in the Daniels administration and why she is primed to replace Daniels in 2012 if she chooses.

The room is full for the LG debate- packed mostly with Mitch Daniels supporters.  Unfortunately for Mr. Oxley, it seems that the room is reflecting what is likely to be the result of this election- a complete and total victory by Mitch Daniels and Becky Skillman.

A side note:  I've been asked several times why Mitch Daniels chose the color green.  It's apparent at events like this one where Daniels supporters stick out like a sore (green) thumb.  I don't see ANY corresponding Long-Thompson wear.  There seem to be a few JLT staffers in the corner looking like their candidate- completely clueless.

Gerry Dick is the moderator for today's debate.  Questioners include Ruth Ann Gordern from WISH TV, Tom Beckman from Indiana Prairie Farmer, Gary Truitt from Hoosier Ag Today and Dave Russel from Brownfield Ag Network.

------

Ok, my internet connection totally pooped out on me.

Q to Oxley:  What are your agricultural priorities?  Answer:  We need health care and better education.  Yeah, basically he didn't answer the problem.

Skillman:  We created the office of community and rural affairs.  We've also been working on rural entrepeneurship initiatives.  We've had great partners with state and local leaders to get these things gonig.  We also have a new hometown competitiveness program to work with communities to determine strengths in order to have strong and sustainable operations.

Q to Skillman:  Lots of new dairy farms, etc. but we don't have a strategic plan.  What is your plan and vision for helping the dairy industry?  Answer:  In the early days when we adopted the seven strategies on agriculture, dairy wasn't one of them.  Our department, however, serves as strong advocates for all livestock industry.  We all have a role to play there.  We've had a lot of growth which is why we've announced the ag regulation task force and will be making recommendations to the governor this year.

Oxley:  Our approach to agriculture and livestock.  Bring everyone to the table and make everyone a part.  Livestock operations, however, need to be done in a responsible manner.  The Long-Thompson and Oxley administration won't support bad actors.

Q to Oxley:  One of our strategies was to double pork production by 2020.  Do you support that action and what would you do to make it happen?  Answer:  We will support the increase of pork production, but not only do we want to support pork production we want to support all of the livestock industry.  We believe that not everyone has been adequetly included in the program.

Skillman:  We haven't doubled it yet, but there has been a 22% increase since 2005, but that's still a decrease from 1995.  We've been working on international trade to help increase that production.  We hope that these trips we've been making overseas will help.

Q for Skillman:  Are we tapped out with jobs from overseas or do we need to look at jobs related to research?  Answer:  Indiana is #1 in North America in new international jobs coming to a state.  More than 45,000 new jobs are coming from these international trips.

Oxley:  When O'Bannon left we had 13 trade offices throughout the world.  Today we have five.  At the same time, the department of agriculture has increased its budget 45% while closing these offices.  We also need to be looking into jobs we can create RIGHT HERE.

Q for Oxley:  Something about schools.  Answer:  2005 budget was horrible and took money from schools.  Budget also caused much of property tax problems.  We are also going to work with Congress to change "No Child Left Behind."  We want more flexibility.

Skillman:  We are proposing a lot of education policy changes for 2009.  We want to get more in schools.  We would like to consolidate admin costs through joint purchasing.  We've also proposed immunity for teachers. 

Skillman vs. Oxley: Follow the action on Twitter

We are here at the Indiana State Fairgrounds to cover the Indiana LG Debate.  Follow live updates on our Twitter streams at www.twitter.com/krisluidhardt and for more colorful commentary follow www.twitter.com/kurtluidhardt.

New Client Videos

Here are some new client videos that we helped create here at Prosper:

Energy issue re-invigorates Republicans

Indiana Republican candidates are really working hard on the Energy issue and it should pay dividends.  Several are making great use of new media for their efforts.

Luke Puckett in the 2nd District
Luke Puckett set the gold standard by organizing a trip to ANWR to show 2nd district voters why they should support a candidate who will drill here in the US vs. US Rep Donnelly who has opposed such measures.  Check out his YouTube channel where he published videos from Alaska.  He also scheduled several blogger conference calls while on his trip.

US Rep Dan Burton
Dan Burton has introduced his own comprehensive Energy plan in Congress and has been promoting it via his new Twitter account (www.twitter.com/danburton) and with new pages on his official and campaign website.  He unveiled a new splash page on his campaign site to collect email addresses of supporters.  He's also got a new video on Energy posted on YouTube.

(Full Disclosure:  Burton is a client)

US Rep Steve Buyer
Buyer has also introduced his own Energy plan.  We don't find any promotion of this online.

Mike Sodrel, Greg Goode
Sodrel and Goode also tagged along with Puckett on the trip.  Although both published press releases on their websites, neither seems to have posted any online video.  Sodrel lacks a YouTube channel and Greg Goode's hasn't been updated since he posted his announcement speech.

RNC berates donors

I've assisted a lot of candidates with fundraising in the past.  One thing I've never attempted with any seriousness was guilt.  I've not insulted or berated our prospects for fear that would be DE-motivating.

Apparently the RNC thinks differently.

So the RNC accuses us of abandoning and deserting the party because we haven't sent them an annual contribution?

We're real motivated now.