ObamaCare Media Strategy Misses the Mark

In 1998 I ran communications for one of the most stunning political victories of the '90s: Jordan Roberts' upset win as the first-ever woman Senator from the State of Confusion. The campaign was a simulation, part of an intensive 5-day campaign boot camp, but even though Roberts was fake (I had to play her in drag - that's for another time) I learned the basic axioms of communication strategy:

1. You start with a goal (50% plus 1 vote) which reveals the target audience you need to achieve that goal (soccer moms from Sycamore and young voters throughout the State of Confusion).

2. Then you settle on a compelling message to sway that audience (Jordan Roberts will fight sprawl, preserve open space and is opposed to the dastardly Sycamore mine).

3. Then you win them over with tactics that reinforce that message. (We targeted community newspapers, canvassed every grocery store and built Roberts something called a "website")

Communications strategy is an art, and it follows the same formula for issues (environment, women's rights) as it does for elections.

I thought about Jordan Roberts while I watched President Obama's health care press conference. Obama is running a full court press to win health care reform, but The White House isn't following the formula. Surely there's a a strategy, but as I looked over the headlines from the presser the next day - and at the wavering public support for health care - I couldn't suss it out. Is health reform falling victim to lackluster messaging and a poor campaign? Are there better alternatives? Let's play strategist! Here's what we're looking at:

GOAL: This should be easy - the goal is to win House and Senate passage of health care for all Americans. But The White House is starting with one hand behind their back: "Health Care" reform isn't written yet. There are drafts. There are committee proposals. But the details are in flux, so The White House is out hustling for a plan that doesn't yet exist.

Ezra Klein wrote a great piece today in The Washington Post about how the Obama Administration's approach to health care reform has been to just do the opposite of what Bill Clinton did. In 1993, Hillary (and The White House) wrote ClintonCare. So in 2009 the actual bill has been outsourced to Congress, which has left President Obama out there campaigning for an unfinished bill that someone else wrote. Where is the helpful WhiteHouse.gov Q & A that could assuage concerned voters? There isn't one, because there aren't any "A's" yet. It's a mess.

AUDIENCE: This is tricky. Because health care is something that impacts every American, you have to explain to every American what it is and how it will work. But the real audience is simple: You need to convince independent and centrist voters in conservative/center-leaning districts to raise a total shitstorm if their Representatives vote against health care. These are the people who are represented by "blue dog" conservative Democrats in Congress; it's also some of those pesky working class white voters that we thought would be racist against Obama but weren't. There are some signs that President Obama may be honing in on this audience (see message below) but the sense I get is that they are not yet pushing an aggressive strategy to pressure wavering legislators.

MESSAGE: A campaign "message" is the reason why people should support something, and Obama is pretty consistent here: We have to reform health care because we can't afford not to. He has tied his message to the economic crisis, and to the staggering costs of health care. If you go back to our audience, it's smart: the target audience is worried about the economy - so the message responds to that.

The problem, of course, is that "Reform health insurance now because we can't afford not to" isn't exactly "Yes We Can." (A message isn't as focused as a slogan, but you get my point - there's no Will.I.Am video coming out of the conceptual need to reduce the tripling of health insurance premiums.) It's also not very "I feel your pain," and it's hampered because there isn't a plan on paper yet. So the message is muddled by fears of massive government spending. It's also a little Bush-ian, even though it's true: we have to do this or else.