The Thompson Postmortem
by Patrick Ruffini :: January 24th, 2008 12:12 amThis will be the first in a series of posts analyzing each of the Republican presidential candidates as they depart the race (or, in one case, somehow miraculously wind up with the nomination). I have asked some of the GOP’s brightest strategists to share their perspectives on what went wrong as candidates drop out, capping off with a tour-de-force “how they did it” post about the winner.
None of the strategists quoted in this series are affiliated with any Presidential campaign, and all will remain anonymous to get the benefit of their most candid insights. I’m doing this series of strategic debriefs not to bash the losers, but to glean lessons for our field in 2012 or ‘16.
First up is Fred Thompson, who left the race on Tuesday. Thompson entered the race in pole position and became the first candidate to drop out. It’s safe to say his candidacy failed to live up the hype. Why?
One strategist tells me Thompson lacked a central rational for running:
Fred Thompson’s failure to resonate with the GOP electorate comes down to a very fundamental problem: There was never a reason to vote for him. Ultimately, there has to be a reason for someone to run for president. Thompson never had a compelling reason to be president. Instead, he saw an opportunity to become president. Lacking a “fire-in-the-belly” reason to run for office leads one to campaign in a rather passive manner.
Another was short and sweet, tapping into the “laziness” meme: “He was lazy — not good for early states. So when conservatives tuned in, they sailed on the Huckabee ship instead.”
The Thompson people I know have been adamant about defending their guy from the “lazy” charge. (See Rich Galen’s column today for a perfect example.) In Thompson they genuinely saw a calm, substantive, almost Zen-like figure, reluctant to descend into the muck of Presidential politics. Though this self-image was certainly admirable, one GOP communications maven says that by trying to embrace that notion and make it his, Fred only made matters worse:
I know people trot out the thing about him not wanting to play the media’s game, but it seems to me that you can’t credibly run for one of the toughest jobs in the world if you cultivate (and I do mean cultivate) a reputation for laziness. Driving around a state fair in a golf cart, showing up late for all kinds of appearances, not spending anything near the amount of time other candidates are in early primary states… unfortunately, that kind of thing just doesn’t give off much confidence in someone’s ability to actually do the job in question, irrespective of how smart they might be, what good policies they might espouse, and what command they may have of information that’s fairly critical for a would-be president to possess.
Others go back to the summer and the well-known stories of Thompson staff bloodletting. Here’s what a source sympathetic to Fred but outside the campaign had to say:
Bottom line: the Thompson campaign did not have a clear chain of command and that resulted in a communications breakdown.
And:
The original campaign structure set out to be innovative in campaigning. The replacement structure tried to duplicate that, equating going on Leno and doing a video announcement with new and innovative. By the time the announcement rolled around, the campaign had descended into near inflexible bureaucracy — frequently pitting the candidate against his own campaign.
In the end, though, it comes down to this: Thompson is a terrible manager. He originally surrounded himself with good managers, but in establishing a campaign structure, those good managers were pushed out the door by worse managers, but better networkers.
My take: It’s difficult to disagree with the “lazy” and “fire in the belly” critiques. Voters don’t want someone maniacally obsessed with winning power, but they do expect intensity and focus. What some saw as substantive answers in the debates could easily be seen as rambling and overly Senatorial. Thompson supporters correctly point out that their man shares his laid-back style with fellow actor Ronald Reagan, but Reagan had moments like “I paid for this microphone!” Did Fred ever come close?
It’s a shame, because Thompson was a unique candidate shackled inside a cookie-cutter campaign. In this era of authenticity, communications and strategy people need to be prepared to sell the candidate as he actually is, no matter what that might be. If the goal was to showcase Thompson as substantive, then the remedy was to do two and three hour long town hall meetings. Instead, we had perfunctory campaigning that fatally undercut the substance argument.
I think the central lesson to be gleaned from the Thompson campaign is “trust your instincts.” When Thompson first teased us with running, his message was all about channeling conservative grassroots frustration. About listening to the grassroots who had been sold down the river on immigration and other issues, and taking dead aim at the enemies of conservatism, starting with Michael Moore and moving down the line. The great hope was that by deploying his sunny Hollywood persona with a dollop of conservative populism he would transcend the Giuliani/Romney/McCain lesser-of-evils fight. He promised us a different type of campaign that would use the Internet to end-run the liberal media.
This electrified the activist class and earned him virtually instantaneous frontrunner status. So what happens next? Everyone associated with the strategy that made Thompson the frontrunner is either fired or resigns, and is replaced by largely by conventional Washington insiders.
Though Thompson insiders warn it wasn’t that cut-and-dried, and that the original team did indeed have its share of greenhorns and duds, the point is that the original instinct was still the right one. The Fred Thompson from the Michael Moore video was the real deal, and post-September, he never showed up.
Thompson the candidate also never developed a message beyond that of being a checklist conservative. The problem is that people don’t vote for issues, they vote for the most compelling people. The wrong issue positions passionately felt beat the right ones rationally argued any day of the week. This is how an uneven, single-issue candidate like Huckabee could steal Thompson’s thunder so readily though Thompson was inarguably the better all-around conservative.
In his pre-candidacy, Thompson had a compelling argument about tackling the hard-to-fix issues like Social Security conventional politicians wouldn’t. Where was this during crunch time? Thompson’s message was more about covering all the bases rather than maxing out on the one or two issues that made him different from everyone else running.
Ultimately, the story of the Fred Thompson campaign will be one of authenticity and grassroots potential wasted on a cookie-cutter Washington campaign.
UPDATE: A reader sends in this very astute observation:
I think Fred’s biggest problem is that he was never a leader on any issue. He may have had the most conservative record overall but was seen as kind of average. Although he would be acceptable to social conservatives he was never outspoken like Huckabee was about abortion, gay marriage etc. His fiscal record was good but he could not compete with Romney as someone who understood the economy. He talked tough on security and the war but never led the charge while in the Senate to keep a strong military. So Fred’s real problem was that he never had his own base within the Republican party he just tried to chip some supporters away from the leaders.
That rings true, doesn’t it? Can anyone name an issue — even an obscure issue — on which Thompson led in his eight years in the U.S. Senate? Thompson may have been the best all-around conservative, but he couldn’t beat Giuliani/McCain on national security, Giuliani/Romney on the economy, or Huckabee on social issues, so he never stood out. Also, for those of you looking for proximate causes of demise, wasn’t Thompson’s refusal to embrace the Federal Marriage Amendment the tipping point which drove the FRC types and others into Huckabee’s camp? As I remember it, Huckabee got quite a bit of momentum out of that Values Voters straw poll.
Tagged: campaign postmortem 
fred thompson strategy
Comments (15) 
Trackbacks (1) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Except for the fact that Thompson is not near the front of the line of candidates who have dropped.
Fred will be missed, those who said he would be a hit and then analyzing his leave… won’t. Pundits….Gotta love Rush and crew… they’re funny to watch when they have no strings to pull.
This election is in the hands of the people and we want no central pundit telling us how it will be.
Now this is obvious, but two key flaws in the Fred effort were the late start and the weak fundraising. The vacuum in the field Fred addressed in the early summer of 2007 had been filled to some extent in the early states by Mitt Romney, who bought his way in with the “conventional conservative” vote (as opposed to the Pat Robertson/Gary Bauer/Mike Huckabee type voter). Fred could have won an authenticity battle with Mitt, but wasn’t on the ground to fight it
And you need expensive and professional media to exploit a media candidate. Once in late, Fred’s need to make up lost ground was exacerbated and his tepid FR couldn’t get it done
Patrick- your analysis brings much needed clarity to the WTH happened questions we Fredheads are asking.
While some staff changes and shakeups are to be expected in any organization and are often desirable- the ones made by Fred were a disaster. For those of us paying attention- the difference in the campaign started to show up in July/August. From creative, innovative and even daring- it went to staid, disappointing and - yawn- dull.
Admittedly- Fred didn’t get a fair shake from the media- but that can’t be his or our excuse for the failure of his campaign. We ALL saw Fred could work his way around the media with his Michael Moore video- but that kind of creativity gave way to the safe way - the expected way of a campaign.
A profound loss for us all.
I agree with much of what you wrote except the last part. People do vote on issues. Not solely, but, yes, they do. But that’s not the central point here.
Fred never established his niche. His early struggles destroyed his pre-announcement momentum. And, as you pointed out, his potentially innovative campaign got hijacked by traditionalists who probably had sharp elbows.
I think if you want to know why Thompson lost, you have to analyze why other candidates won. Message is certainly part of it. Three candidates have in turn, claimed each leg of the stool because they had the credibility to do so. Each winner also had well-established organizations to fully exploit candidate appearances and get out the vote. McCain may be broke, but before he was broke, he was step for step organizing with Romney. Ironically, when everyone else was writing his obituary, Romney took exception, pointing out that McCain still had commitments and organization in place all over the country. His win in South Carolina was less about bounce from New Hampshire and more about 2 years of laying groundwork for the victory.
Thompson didn’t even know he needed an organization, thinking he could get in at Labor day and pull it off. McCain and Romney had been working for two years to create state organizations across the country.
He also had no realistic prospect, vis-a-vis what the other candidates could bring to bear, to win a major primary before Super Tuesday. McCain had realistic expectations to win NH or SC or both. Romney felt he could win any of the opening primaries. Huckabee had IA and SC as good states for his campaign. Again–too late with too little.
I agree with your views on message. Thompson was basically a resume. A “consistent conservative” who would “do a good job”. The problem was that his rivals had better resumes and unimpeachable claims to one leg of the stool and pretty good claims to one or two others. Thompson was “me too” and that hardly fires the imagination.
In the final analysis, Thompson was too late and too unexceptional.
Thompson’s withdrawal is unremarkable, but his support bears some analysis. Why did Fred excite a certain class of conservatives? IMO? Naivete and nostalgia. They keep looking for the second coming of Reagan instead of honestly appraising our political situation for what it is. I’m a Romney supporter not because he looks like Reagan to me, but because he’s Romney and I’ve believe that Washington was broken well before he ever coined the slogan. Bush is a good man, a committed conservative, but simply not talented enough to deal with the crisis we have–hell, Romney as smart as he is, may not be either. Conservatives need a president who won’t get blindsided by FEMA, can speak coherently and extemporously and who knows where the bodies are buried. Thompson, as fine a man as he is, was never going to be that guy.
In spite of Thompson’s late entry, lack of campaign infrastructure, and media resistance to his candidacy, I really don’t blame him, his staff for his campaign never taking off, and I disagree with the majority of the rationales offered here for that. The fact is that the electorate is not as Conservative as we conservatives would hope it or want it to be. For all of Fred’s warts and imperfections, he was thoughtful, calm, and serious, as Rich Galen says- qualities we say we want in a President, yet simultaneously penalize him for. Throughout the primary season, he never pandered, wavered, capitulated, hedged, or distorted the record. He put forth very serious and substantive policy proposals which excited conservatives who saw them as nothing short of a complete broadside into our unsustainable entitlement and immigration mess.
In spite of all his imperfections, the plus side of Thompson’s campaign ledger clearly outweighed the minuses, yet he could not get a foothold in the early primary states. But I would suggest to you that it’s the electorate’s misplaced priorities and fickleness, rather than Fred being a poor candidate, as to why his campaign never took off. Peggy Noonan wondered not too long ago if Reagan would win today (before he was REAGAN). I may be biased, but Fred was the only candidate who comported himself in a way which can be described as Presidential, and I find it more than a bit amusing how the mainstream media could convince the electorate of Fred’s “lack of energy” and laziness, yet portray the 72 year old John McCain as a candidate full of vitality and energy.
Thompson treated voters as if they were reasoning adults, competent to think things through and make their own decisions. If nothing else, he proved that all the calls for serious discussions and debates were a bunch of hooey. MSM quickly realized his appeal and fastened lazy on him. We are the poorer for losing a candidate who actually thought about the issues instead of just thinking what he would say about an issue if asked.
I think the disconnect that the mainline GOP has with the FredHeads is this:
The GOP thinks that GWB is a conservative and that Romney will be one. They are Republicans, but their claim to conservatism is weak to non-existent on the “limited/small government” leg of the stool.
I believe that there is a large group (probably not a majority in the party, but a sizable minority) of folks on the Right who are less concerned with the social and more with the other two conservative legs. Fred was his weakest where Huckabee was the strongest (and scariest to me) in support of sanctity of life and marriage.
None of the other candidates show any degree of Federalism.
Fred was different from the rest of the pack in ways that only those looking for that could see. Others see W and Romney as “good enough”. For most FredHeads, the other candidates are indistinguishable from those on the other side of the aisle.
This is a “discussion” between moderate and conservative republicans and with the departure of FDT from the race, it appears that the latter have no place at the table.
“In this era of authenticity, communications and strategy people need to be prepared to sell the candidate as he actually is, no matter what that might be. If the goal was to showcase Thompson as substantive, then the remedy was to do two and three hour long town hall meetings. Instead, we had perfunctory campaigning that fatally undercut the substance argument.”
Ruffini really hits the nail on the head here. An ardent Thompson supporter, I watched his campaign via TV and the web from 2000 miles away and could see numerous mistakes being made by the traveling staff. For example, was there an advance team, and if so, why was Fred being allowed to exit the bus and wander along empty streets instead of having a welcoming delegation to escort him to a staged event? No wonder Fred was ridiculed by reporters for shaking a few hands and climbing back on the bus. The reporters said Fred was lazy, while I saw these kinds of episodes as symptomatic of an incompetent and/or inexperienced campaign staff. The only thing I would fault Fred for was that he apparently hired these people who let him down in a big way. Perhaps the money never existed to hire more professional skill sets, people who would have instinctively known to do what Ruffini has astutely recommended.
BTW, if any of the remaining GOP candidates are considering having Mary Matalin as a campaign advisor, I would say don’t bother. She was a useless prima donna.
C. Perrine-
The fact that we are hyperanalyzing such minutae- some of Fred’s perfunctory campaign stops- as if they were representative of every campaign event that he held, shows that the media, and most of the electorate, are way too hung up on the process. Were any of the other candidates’ schedules so hyperanalyzed as Freds’? Were any of their less than stellar appearances or less frequently attended events put up on the proverbial JumboTron and then advertised as entirely representativeor a carbon copy of each campaign event?
I saw Fred 3 times on the stump in Florida- his events were not hurried, he shook hands afterwards, and he gave a solid stump speech and took questions- your standard affair. Fred was right to point out that we are way too hung up on the process, rather than substantive discussions of the issues, rather than who has simply done the most events and the most meet & greets in September. I don’t ever recall any prior election in which the media focused with the kind of intensity it did on the process of the election- my guess is that with today’s technology, it’s far easy to microanalyze the minutae, but entirely miss the bigger picture- the important things in which elections are ultimately about.
One other point was Fred’s inability to bring pop culture to bear in his effort.
Outside the megacities, country music is HUGE. Fred was from TN and supposedly had endorsements from Nashville stars. I can assure you Alan Jackson or Reba McIntire woulda drawn much larger crowds than Chuck Norris in places like Sioux City and Spartanburg
And they weren;t used.
This would also make an emotional link to the rank-and-file voter than a dissertation on entitlements or terrorism simply won’t
Vince said: “…my guess is that with today’s technology, it’s far easy to microanalyze the minutae, but entirely miss the bigger picture- the important things in which elections are ultimately about.”
Regarding Fred personally, I don’t disagree with anything Vince has said in either of his posts, but most voters will never see a presidential candidate in person even once. Thus, the technology that enables reporters to microanalyze the minutiae and make the insignificant appear significant places a demand on the campaign to micromanage what reporters do see and hence what the public is allowed to see. This isn’t even a new technique. It has been going on in campaigns for quite some time. The desire for authenticity simply means tailoring the process to the candidate rather than creating a candidate to fit some preconceived mold.
Yes, I believe the media judged Fred harshly over things that made them look shallow-minded, and Fred was correct in criticizing the press for being hungup on process. Nevertheless it was the campaign’s responsibility to lift the press out of that rut by offering them a different kind of process, one that would take advantage of Fred’s greatest assets such as his oratorical skills. It boils down to this: either campaigns control the process or they become its victim. I’m feeling exhausted just contemplating the time and energy this takes and would like to extend my sympathy to all the candidates.
I think the only issue that Thompson lead during his senate tenure was for federalism. Thompson had more 99-1 votes than any senator during his tenure and it was all in the name of federalism and limited government. The campaign should have exploited this and had him run as the small government person in the race.
Fred just ran a terrible campaign. Don’t know why he bothered.
[…] Vanity Fair: Bill Clinton, Nasty Man TIME - The Page: Clinton Camp’s NASTY telephone calls - Listen HERE - MSNBC’s First Read: Obama’s Opportunity RCP!!!! Barack Obama: The Great Need of the Hour - speech @ Ebenezer Baptist Church Portfolio: Davos - Millennium Development Goals Take Center Stage Patrick Ruffini: The Thompson Postmortem American Princess: Our Political Primary System […]