Stung by recent criticism in the Huffington Post, key Democratic insiders have apparently completely re-thought their approach to doing message.
Here is what I know so far.
New "breakthrough" polling data has apparently been discovered that shows that half of America hates both political parties and doesn't actually vote every four years, so that it turns out that the best way to move a progressive Democratic agenda is not to try and nationalize the issues and send out Harry Reid, Rahm Emanuel and James Carville with a big D tattooed on their foreheads to make the case that suddenly the Democratic Party and its candidates have all the answers. Or send out breathy press releases that tend to overstate Democrats' ability to do better on an issue, which only makes most voters roll their eyes because they have heard it all before. Central to these findings is a new secret analysis of 2004 presidential messaging that shows how voters tepidly reacted to John Kerry's long-long-long series of 2004 "I Have a Plan" speeches on health care, education and other issues. The study found especially low numbers and yawns recorded by voters in reaction to Kerry's central Iraq message that he could train way-way-way more Iraqi troops than Bush, which Kerry offered up as the main suggested way to get us the hell out of there.
Meantime, according to other insiders, new focus groups from Mark Penn, financed by a consortium of funders close to someone who may know Roger Altman, have found that it is actually better to let other non-partisan souls define what is good policy and then endorse those ideas as smart. Crazy huh? Penn promises to re-do the focus groups over and over to prove this point.
As a result, Democratic spin doctors like James Carville are now advising that a few frontline Democratic leaders and 2008 contenders like Joe Biden should single-mindedly keep blasting away at Bush ethics, CIA prisons, national security leaks and the failed war on terror, while strongly calling on each Senate and House candidate in 2006 to do a version of what he wisely calls the "Cajun Can-Do, We're For That Two-Step."
The dance goes like this. The Democratic candidate points to a smart project or initiative they actually feel passionate and good about on say preventative health care, or clean energy, or global engagement via girls education, or lower cost Internet service, or better government, and says "I'm for that".
Remarkably, many of these programs are widely available, and have been developed and deployed by Governors, Attorneys Generals and State Treasurers without the aid of polling.
The candidates' campaign staff then creates something quaintly called a "position paper" and encourages the press to ask his or her opponent if they are for that idea too -- or not. Message contrasts then emerge -- giving voters a clear choice on a few key issues salient to their district.
Insiders believe that this process -- dubbed "campaigning" -- might actually promote reverse framing and allow voters to Think of A Donkey again.
Now to be completely candid: I'm still not sure if these studies and sources are really credible -- or some kind of rhetorical device to make a point. I'll have to get back to you on that after polling some more of my insider friends. But in the meantime, the new Carville advice sounds pretty damned smart to me.