Sep 10, 2024 8 min read

Winning Big Part 3: The Election Defined

September 10, 2024

In the last posts, we looked at why aim for a landslide, why defining what the election is about is crucial, and how having a clear top priority frees the candidate to feed more red meat to their base.

But how do we pick the defining issue? And why manufacturing? The key is to start with who, not what.

Who Do We Define the Election for?

With so many great choices, from the threat to democracy to reproductive freedom, why choose manufacturing at a time when employment is low and wages have been rising?

The most important segment of the electorate is the swing voters in the swing states. Whatever we think of the electoral college, these voters will decide the election. And in poll after poll, interview after interview, the main concern of independents and of many Republicans is the economy. Polls also indicate that Trump, despite his inability to focus on economics at the request of his advisors, is seen as better on this score.

His dominance on the economy is no mystery. Trump's claim a few days ago that he would “once again turn America into the manufacturing superpower of the world” is attractive to anyone who remembers what some of the pay and benefits in manufacturing were like decades ago. His promise to end taxes on tips made such common sense to working people that Harris promptly adopted it. Along with his promise to remove taxes on Social Security (which Democrats dismissed as too costly and a threat to Social Security), Trump has shown conclusively that he his finger on the pulse of voters' economic concerns much more clearly than Harris does.

On voters' wish list for the economy, we are behind Trump. We have to catch up and surpass him.

Some voters who are steadfastly opposed to us on social issues and who hold those issues as their top priority over the economy, might be willing to set them aside in favor of voting for a stronger economy—if we promised it clearly and convincingly. From my last post we have seen how this trading of a top priority in for a lower one works in the reverse direction: in 2016, some women opposed to Trump's pro-life stance set that concern aside to vote for his rhetoric on the economy. There's nothing to prevent us from exploiting that same dynamic, swinging voters opposed to some of our planks to vote for our promise on the economy.

We must define the election first and foremost for the people whose votes we need the most. There is no other contender that comes remotely close to the economy.

Of course, the election is for everyone. But swing voters are more equal than the rest of us.

Harris is Cluttered; We Need Clarity

So far, Harris’s focus on the economy hasn’t done the trick. She either looks backward, touting the Biden Administration’s accomplishments, or forward in ways that don’t quite count, promising to beef up government programs such as the child tax credit. She talks vaguely though stridently about expanding unions and workers’ rights. And on her website under the slogan, "A New Way Forward," she lists a raft of economic issues that read as a kind of buckshot attempt to tag every issue rather than highlighting a succinct one to define the election.

And for all those planks, she doesn't even mention well-paid jobs as its own item. Consider her list on the economy, in order:

cut taxes for middle class families
make rent more affordable and home ownership more attainable
grow small businesses and invest in entrepreneurs
take on bad actors and bring down costs
strengthen and bring down the cost of health care
protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare
Support American innovation and workers
Provide a pathway to the middle class through quality, affordable education
Invest in child care and long term care
Lower energy costs and tackle the climate crisis.

And that's just on the economy. Then there are 9 other planks. Nothing wrong with lots of planks. But without a defining priority, it's hard to grasp what the election is about.

Harris's items are important, but they don't focus on what people in swing states and everywhere want: the return of high-wage jobs.

On her website, if you open "Support American innovation and workers" (priority 7), a few paragraphs drop down. Buried in them is this sentence, "Vice President Harris will continue to support American leadership in semiconductors, clean energy, AI, and other cutting edge industries of the future." So, manufacturing and well-paid jobs are in there, after a discussion of what the Biden Administration accomplished. Great, but it's not a core message, let alone the central message. I really had to dig to find it.

She has elsewhere promised to apply tariffs on China, although in the platform this is watered down to "will not tolerate unfair trade practices from China or any competitor that undermines American workers." This reads like she is ticking the China box rather than pledging to bar its well-known practice of dumping goods to cope with its domestic real estate mess. Meanwhile, she attacks Trump for promising even higher tariffs. That attack undercuts her own message on China.

On this latter point we can learn something about messaging. Going back to the previous post, Labour had an eminently sensible idea about Brexit: let's redo the referendum. It made sense because, by that time, it was becoming clear that the razor-thin majority that chose exiting the European Union had eroded; a second referendum could reverse the outcome, keeping Britain in the EU. But relying on an appeal to common sense was a trap. Johnson's alternative, "Get Brexit done!" was a bold call to action that won a landslide victory.

Common sense isn't what wins elections. It's appeal to emotion. And, yes, it's just as true of Democrats. I remember my 2008 Maine town caucus for the Democratic presidential primary. Many of my neighbors in attendance swooned over Obama, that handsome guy. No discussion of policy was needed. Winning is about driving emotion.

Returning to Harris's list above, they all make sense. But it feels like a platform created by a committee aiming to mention every issue, rather than one showing the courage to stake out clear ground.

I remember when Steve Jobs decided his Apple stores were going to showcase just a few items, in contrast to the typical store crammed with items on the chance you might need something. Making a trade off like that involves risk—but so does not making the trade off.

Our shopping experience with Harris is cluttered. We need clarity.

And Trump looks like he might have it. Fortunately for the Democrats, Trump's platform is just as devoid of a single priority and has that same written-by-committee feel. But, as noted at the top of this post, Trump is groping toward the answer when he said recently that he would “once again turn America into the manufacturing superpower of the world.”

But why Manufacturing?

But why does manufacturing in particular rise to the top? What about jobs in healthcare, software, and the sciences?

And why not a different issue entirely, like reproductive freedom? That issue clearly has many Republicans as well as independents swinging toward the Democrats. True enough. And it is certainly wise to make as much out of this fight as we can—we must continue to show our commitment to reproductive freedom and point out the horrible consequences of the so-called pro-life positions that even Trump is trying to distance himself from.

But two points suggest reproductive freedom shouldn't be what defines the election. First, Democrats already own the cause. If that's your top issue, we already have your vote. The second point is that independents and swing voters are not identifying it as the top issue in polls; the economy wins hands down. And unlike reproductive freedom, the Democrats in no way own the economy as an issue; many independents open to voting Democrat see Trump as better. That's where the opportunity lies.

But what about the threat to democracy?

Many will argue, I think correctly, that the threat to democracy is more important than the economy. But that is our priority issue.

We face a choice: do we try and convince others who have different priorities to abandon theirs and adopt ours? Or do we try to give those with different priorities at least some of what they want?

There's a paradox here: To stave off the threat to democracy, we need votes. To get those votes, we need to give voters what they want instead of trying to win them over to our priority. Isn't that...democracy in action? To protect democracy, then, we need to stop talking about protecting democracy and start talking about the issues people care about, whose votes we need.

The Lucrative Power of Manufacturing Jobs

Manufacturing offers high-wage jobs that people can enter without a college degree. A powerful example comes from a New York Times report on a Fruit of the Loom factory in Kentucky from a bygone era. According to the article,

Arlene Dishman began working at Fruit in 1970. She said she had earned as much as $15 an hour — the equivalent of about $100 now — sewing necklines on V-neck T-shirts. "You can’t hardly turn that money down," she said.

Sure, times have changed. But we want the modern-day equivalent back. The Biden-Harris focus on chip manufacturing is a start (even if it requires more schooling); keep going. Here's one path: we have an historic opportunity to build out wind and solar energy, along with creating smart grids to meet the skyrocketing demand for electricity. More on this massive opportunity in a future post. For now, suffice it to say that, given how desperately we need more energy to meet growing demands for electricity (never mind to fight climate change), it's absolutely criminal not to organize our economy to provide these jobs. Republicans and many others are so desperate for better wages (either for themselves or for others) that they will vote for Trump. That explains why Democratic admonitions about his terrible drawbacks—from threat to democracy to being a convicted criminal to being a rapist—are pushed aside.

Trump's voters are fighting for jobs that even Democrats want to see created. That's our chance.

There is so much common ground that we are stumbling over it because we refuse to believe it is there. That is the political opportunity.

Of course, there are many manufacturing sectors we could focus on. And manufacturing jobs are needed everywhere, not just in the swing states. By if Harris were to name specific industries she pledges to grow, she could inspire people across the political divide with the promise to get the country moving again.

Why Dance Around It?

I thought Harris’s selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was a masterstroke. Finally someone who talks like my neighbors here in Trump country, where I live in Maine’s Second District. What he says is a relief. Walz speaks about neighbors helping neighbors who have different beliefs, signaling tolerance. And he talks about how helpful government can be, pointing to the GI Bill and other programs. Walz portrays rural people in a much-needed positive light and warms my heart. Crucially, his defense of government programs puts government back on our side and counters the class warfare tactic of painting it as our enemy.

But while that is wonderful, voters want to hear that Harris/Walz will fight for more well-paid jobs. Will they bring manufacturing jobs back? They don’t have to specify precisely how they would do it—simply promising goes a long way to saying to people who feel forgotten, “I hear you.” So far, I'm not hearing it. Democrats must steal the thunder on jobs—that is the path to a landslide and to trifecta control that includes the House and Senate.

But can we stomach, "Make Manufacturing Great Again"? I also thought of "Make It in America." And friend offered variations on "Get America Back to Work." But I like the idea that Make Manufacturing Great Again takes MAGA and shifts it in a more specific direction. "Get America Manufacturing Again," anyone?

The promise we want is simple: manufacturing jobs with higher pay. It may not appeal to highly educated liberals, but it appeals to the voters we need to convince—just ask Donald Trump.

Action steps

Want to push this as a slogan? Got a better one? Use it in letters to the editor, share this post, make a sign for a rally. And tell your local politician, who could be more open to hearing from you: