Very worthwhile article even if the specific speculations for 2016
are essentially pointless in mid 2013.
 
What is especially  useful is the observation that much (most)  politics
goes on unseen, invisible to nearly everyone, and that major  decisions
are often made years before they come into play.
 
It would seem to be a fact that the theory also applies to other  fields,
whether business or voluntary organizations or religious groups
or still other things. Might be explored for insights into 
the future of RC.
 
Billy
 
 
============================
 
 
 
 
W Post
 
The Iceberg Theory of presidential politics
 
By _Chris Cillizza_ 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/2011/02/24/AB7OmvI_page.html) , Published:  
August 21 ,  2013

 
 
January 1, 2016 is 863 days away. But, judging from the headlines blaring  
across news websites and cable channels this August you might think it was 
next  month.
 
“Ready for Hillary?” asked a chyron on MSNBC. Ted Cruz’s renunciation of 
his  Canadian citizenship launched a thousand — most of them by the Fix — 
blog posts  on his 2016 motivations. The Wall Street Journal penned a piece 
making clear  that _Joe  Biden was prepared to run for president in 2016 
whether or not Clinton  does_ 
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323423804579020781151204004.html)
 . 
The flurry of coverage has spawned a more meta stream of stories and blog  
posts that focus on whether things are starting earlier than they ever have  
before and whether said early start is a good or a bad thing. 
All of which brings us to The Fix’s Iceberg Theory of American presidential 
 politics. Here it is in a sentence: Like an iceberg, the bulk of a 
presidential  race happens underwater, er, out of sight of the average person. 
(Proper tribute  must be paid here. _Mark  Halperin/David Chalian’s “Invisible 
Primary”_ (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=1759082)  is the 
natural progenitor of  our Iceberg Theory.) 
Now, for the longer explanation. 
Most regular people — even those living in states like Iowa, New Hampshire  
and South Carolina that play an outsized role in picking presidents — are  
paying absolutely no attention  to what the people who will run in three 
years time for the nation’s highest  office are doing right now. Like, no 
attention. 
That lack of interest/care tends to drive a narrative that what happens now 
 simply does not matter in the grand scheme of the 2016 race. That’s  
wrong. Simply because the average 2016 voter isn’t aware of what’s  happening 
among the men and women who will run doesn’t mean that the activities  
happening now don’t matter.
 
The storyline for each of the candidates is built out of sight of the 
average  voter, years in advance of the iceberg popping above the surface for 
everyone to  see. 
It was during the 2006 midterm elections that buzz started to build around  
then freshman Sen. Barack Obama, who was drawing massive crowds everywhere 
he  went to stump or raise money for Democratic candidates. 
It was in his 1998 re-election race in Texas that George W. Bush built and  
honed the “compassionate conservative” message that he rode to the 
Republican  nomination and the presidency in 2000. 
On the other side of the equation, it was in 2006 when then Indiana Sen. 
Evan  Bayh was cast as a vanilla centrist, a characterization that played a 
major part  in his decision not to run for president in 2008. Joe Biden 
battled the  perception that he was not serious enough to be the nominee 
throughout the 2008  race — a sense built from years of too honest/impolitic 
comments. 
Fast forward to present day. Is Marco Rubio a conservative who can broaden  
the party’s reach to electorally critical Hispanics or a moderate in  
conservative’s clothing? Is Chris Christie a blunt talking problem solver or a  
bullying blowhard? Is Rand Paul a danger to the GOP or its savior? Is Hillary 
 Clinton the inevitable nominee or the same flawed politician that Obama 
exposed  during the 2008 primary? 
All of these questions will be answered — or come damn close to being  
answered — before a single vote is cast and, in many cases, before a “normal”  
person even begins to think about the presidential race in 2016. 
And, it’s not just “narratives” that get formed years in advance of actual 
 votes. Building a national fundraising operation that can collect tens — 
if not  hundreds — of millions of dollars of money takes lots of time.  
Constructing a political team that has the right combination of  experience, 
new 
insight and a belief in putting the candidate first at all times  can be the 
work of a political lifetime. Courting key activists in Iowa or New  
Hampshire or South Carolina or Nevada is an absolutely arduous process where  
times visited/time spent can make all the difference. 
Ignoring the iceberg nature of the presidential race then can have huge  
negative consequences.  In 2008, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee became  
the momentum candidate after winning the Iowa caucuses but, because he and his 
 team either didn’t understand or ignored the iceberg aspects of the 
presidential  process, he was unable to build on that momentum in New Hampshire 
where he  finished a distant third.  After a runner-up showing in South 
Carolina,  Huckabee’s chances at the nomination vanished. 
Smart candidates — and their campaigns — understand that the bulk of the 
work  that goes into winning the presidential nomination happens below the 
surface,  well out of sight of a single voter. Momentum still matters — a lot —
 but  without a structure to take advantage of that momentum it can peter 
out. And, if  the primary fight drags out — ala the 2008 Democratic primary 
or the 2012  Republican fight — what a candidate and his/her campaign team 
did years before  when no regular people were watching can be the difference 
between winning and  losing. 
If you remember one thing about the presidential race then, remember this:  
It’s an iceberg. What’s going on below the surface can — and almost always 
does  — make you or break you.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to