Long's First Law of Winning Elections
It's a pretty simple law. Here's what you have to do:
You have to act less weird than your opponent.
Note: Long's Law doesn't say you have to act normal. For most office-seekers, that's just not an option. Long's First Law of Winning Elections is, you have to act only slightly less weird than your opponent.
Think about it: Bush v. Gore. Clinton v. Bush. Obama v. Clinton. Even Obama v. McCain. All of these races were colored, primarily, as a contest between an awkwardly packaged and remote-controlled candidate and one who seemed more, well, human. Less weird.
In the epic clash of Mitt v. Newt, what we have is a perfect example of Long's Law. Both of these men are in a race to prove something that is, for whatever reasons, hard to demonstrate to the voters: "I'm less weird than the other guy."
Take, for instance, Gingrich's statement at the last debate:
On the subject of infidelity and his multiple marriages, Gingrich also had to stand back and listen to all other five candidates answer the question before he was given a chance to defend himself.
While some said such issues raised questions about a candidate’s character, fitness for office, and could even raise doubts about his ability to adhere to the presidential oath, Gingrich didn’t complain.
“First of all, I think it is a real issue,” he said. “And people have to look at the person whom they’re gonna loan the presidency. ... They have to have a feeling that this is a person that they can trust with the level of power we give to the presidency.”
In his case, said Gingrich, “I’ve said up-front openly I’ve made mistakes at times. I’ve had to go to God for forgiveness. I’ve had to seek reconciliation. But I’m also a 68-year-old grandfather. And I think people have to measure who I am now and whether I’m a person they can trust.”
Nicely done. Advantage, Newt.
Watch, in the next few weeks, for the emergence of a "new" Mitt, a more "human" Mitt. From today's Politico:
In the past 24 hours, the former Massachusetts governor has talked about his father, experiences while working as a missionary that weren’t even in his memoir — and twice in two days, he’s brought up the Mormon faith that he’s until now largely steered clear of.
For a candidate who’s developed a reputation for stiffness after years spent focusing on his professional background and business expertise, it’s a sizable rhetorical pivot — and one that coincided with a renewed effort by his GOP rivals and Democrats to make an issue of his personal wealth following the the awkward $10,000 bet he offered Rick Perry during Saturday night’s debate.
Rushing to fend off the sudden strength of Newt Gingrich — a candidate who usually avoids delving into his own personal story, and has vulnerabilities there because of his two divorces — Romney has engaged in a humanizing effort. He’s casting himself as more personable, connecting with the economic struggles of the voters despite his own multimillion-dollar fortune, and even taking a new route to talking about American exceptionalism.
Long's First Law of Winning Elections, now in action.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Long's First Law of Winning Elections
Between "hokey dork" and "Bond villain," I'm gonna have to say that "Bond villain" is more weird by a mile.
Edited on Dec 12, 2011 at 11:41amMar '11
Re: Long's First Law of Winning Elections
The Mormonism is not a problem for me with Romney. Really, it is not. I have no preference between Mormonism and the lowest common denominator American civil religion of all of the rest of the candiates except Santorum. But if Rob's First Law is correct, I gotta think that the "So is it boxers or briefs" question is going to hurt Mitt more than Newt.
Edited on Dec 12, 2011 at 11:44amAug '10
Re: Long's First Law of Winning Elections
I look forward to a modification of the classic whine from those folks who hate the two-party system: Why should I have to choose between the lesser of two weirdos?
Jun '10
Re: Long's First Law of Winning Elections
Mitt should maybe let himself get caught drinking Starbucks coffee, dark and caffeinated, to show that even he has some human weaknesses. Oh, the shame.
Mar '11
Re: Long's First Law of Winning Elections
Wait a minute, before you go off naming laws of electability after yourself can you prove you have passed the Murphy pizza-delivery test?
Aug '11
Re: Long's First Law of Winning Elections
On which scale of weird did Bush I and McCain finish on top? Um, unless weird is code for ZZZZZZZZZZZZ?
Dec '10
Re: Long's First Law of Winning Elections
Well, in the Bush I case, Dukakis maxed out the weird scale when he answered the debate question about how he'd react if someone raped and murdered Kitty.
Aug '10
Re: Long's First Law of Winning Elections
@Anon A gotta disagree... The hokey dork is by far the wierder. "so I told them to get the H E Double Hockey Stick out" What, God can't spell?
Aug '10
Re: Long's First Law of Winning Elections
That sounds like the Louis CK bit where he says that the most offensive word right now is "The N-Word". Not that ACTUAL N-word, but when someone like a news anchor literally says "The N-Word".
It means that the speaker has attempted to put the offensive idea of the word into our brains, but they don't have the guts to actually say the word itself. Jerks.
(I note the irony that I also don't have the guts to write the word. There is no need to point it out.)
Edited on Dec 12, 2011 at 1:12pmJan '11
Re: Long's First Law of Winning Elections
So, if I understand you correctly, all Mitt has to is to hang out with Alec Baldwin? Just for a night or two?
Mar '11
Re: Long's First Law of Winning Elections
Rob Long:
You have to act less weird than your opponent.
Think about it: Bush v. Gore. Clinton v. Bush. Obama v. Clinton. Even Obama v. McCain. All of these races were colored, primarily, as a contest between an awkwardly packaged and remote-controlled candidate and one who seemed more, well, human. Less weird.
I would alter/extend the Long Rule to: the angry candidate will always lose.
Any candidate in the last 30 years with a perceived chip on their shoulder has lost: McCain, Gore, even Dole. Americans like to vote for a fighter, but only if that person is a happy warrior and not a pitbull.
This should also be a warning to conservatives who yearn for a candidate that can channel their anger.
Mar '11
Re: Long's First Law of Winning Elections
If Newt Gingrich becomes president and his "Brain Science" fantasies are realized, I want to see a study commissioned to determine to what extent the average voter relies on a candidate's personality vs. their stats (positions, biography, etc.) when deciding whom to vote for.
My wager would be about 80/20.
Aug '10
Re: Long's First Law of Winning Elections
Mendel: If Newt Gingrich becomes president and his "Brain Science" fantasies are realized, I want to see a study commissioned to determine to what extent the average voter relies on a candidate's personality vs. their stats (positions, biography, etc.) when deciding whom to vote for.
My wager would be about 80/20. · Dec 12 at 6:39pm
Read The Myth of the Rational Voter.
Apr '11
Re: Long's First Law of Winning Elections
Nixon may have been weirder than McGovern.
Breckinridge looked more like Rob Long than Lincoln (my metric for normal).
Van Buren was also way weirder than Harrison.
Still, a pretty good rule at the Presidential level (less good for VPs, but people don't seem to split tickets as often as they should).
At a state level, Mike Gravel and Jesse Ventura seem like they must be odder than their opponents. Rubio was definitely more eccentric than Crist. Without actually checking, it seems like a less strong rule here.
At a rep level, Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Alan Grayson, Cynthia McKinney.... there's a considerable list.