The US election passed with a narrow majority thanks to cries of Yes we Can and Forward from a leader who likes the sound of his own voice. Parallels with Scotland? They don’t stop there…
Ground game
It’s often mentioned how awesome the SNP’s ground game is thanks to their voter ID technology and army of volunteers willing to knock doors and fill in forms to feed the input data. I personally have never fully appreciated how valuable this is until watching wall to wall coverage of the US election in Washington DC this past week which remarked upon the Democrat party’s similar jewel in the crown and explained in vivid detail how this made the difference on Tuesday.
The US electoral map is a sea of red and, at a glance, would suggest a strong Republican nation. The results from the House of Representatives suggest this also with the Republicans taking 242 seats to the Democrats 193. However, in the head to head Presidential race, the Democrats won where it mattered and won big. Huge majorities in concentrated areas were racked up and the thinly spread Republican support wasn’t enough to make up the difference. In DC itself the Democrats won a mind-boggling 91% of the vote. Team Obama knew where their vote was and how to get it out to reach 50%. The SNP and Team Salmond are well placed to do the same on behalf of Yes Scotland, and the US election shows that that can make the difference, irrespective of money spent and unhappy economic fortunes for the incumbent Government.
Christians
À terrific Democrat commentator on CNN, Van Jones, made the fascinating point that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to be openly Christian and a member of his party. The increased secularisation of the US, and the Democratic party, in stark contrast to the bellicose God-loving of the Republicans, makes Christianity rather uncool these days. Van spoke of feeling like he had to come out of the closet in admitting who he is to party colleagues.
The SNP and Greens are not in a dissimilar situation. The parties’ collective view on gay marriage and abortion should not alter for many Christians’ historic and I would say long outdated views on society, but the parties do have a problem if Christians with no quarrel with these policies nonetheless feel uncomfortable being a part of the party.
Scotland has never struck me as being as Christian as America is. There were 26% born again Christians taking part in the US election (76% of whom voted for Romney incidentally). The 2001 census showed that Scotland was 65% Christian at that time. I may not be comparing apples with apples there, but the Scottish Christian bloc is a significant one and there will not be a Yes result in 2014 if they are made to feel excluded from the main parties of the Yes Scotland coalition.
The SNP and the Greens may have a point in feeling (ironically) holier-than-thou on gay rights and abortion, but as a means to an end in terms of winning independence, they may need to think of a new strategy.
Voter alliances
Speaking of coalitions, another point that Van Jones made was that the 2008 Obama coalition of blacks, Hispanics, the young and females stuck together and delivered a 50% return that provided victory against whites, males and the elderly who largely voted Republican.
I’m not aware of any specific studies that have analysed the demographics of those who intend to vote Yes but I would personally suggest that broadly speaking it is white, male and young. The recent independence march in Edinburgh certainly suggested this, though I’m happy to be proved or argued otherwise.
Should Yes Scotland aggressively target this narrow group of Scots, similar to how Obama won 2008 and 2012? Should it try to be all things to all people as Romney tried (and failed) to be? There’s a big strategic call to be made there.
Substance free election.
The most striking aspect of the past week for me was the absence of any discussion of specific policies held by Obama or Romney. This, presumably, was largely because neither had any. The Republicans spoke of taking America back and the Democrats wanted to go forwards but it’s telling that it is only now, post-election, that politicians and pundits are talking about what to do about the fiscal cliff and how the future budget will look.
The lesson for Scotland here is that opposition for opposition’s sake is insufficient to win elections, you have to be for something to beat an incumbent. Obama was fragile on the economy, on jobs and on not delivering the change that he had promised. Romney failed to outline what he was for and consequently, and deservedly, came up short of votes.
Labour is the main opponent to Yes Scotland and need to learn lessons from their own past and this US election. They objected to free tuition and council tax freezes, were then for them at election time and are now against them again. That’s not going to be good enough for a Scottish electorate that needs to have a strong vision of what devolved Scotland will look like post-2014 before they’ll put a cross beside No at the referendum.
Not that it’s just the unionist side that has lessons to learn. The SNP has so far failed to paint a clear enough picture of independence, specifically Scotland’s relations with the EU. Both sides of the debate are falling short and Yes Scotland cannot expect to win this referendum by default. Both Obama and Romney failed to project a vision of the future and the electorate went with the status quo. Yes Scotland should be mindful of this risk as much as anyone given it is they who want a change to be made.
Symbolism
Abraham Lincoln (bear with me) may even have a lesson for the unionists and probably specifically for David Cameron. While Civil War raged through the United States in Ye 1860s, President Lincoln made the decision to continue with the building of the dome to the US Capitol. His logic was that if the nation could see the seat of power being completed, then the union would endure.
Now, Scotland is not in the midst or on the brink of Civil War, and the UK Government isn’t going to rebuild Westminster, but perhaps using Lincoln’s strategy of building a visible and symbolic British artefact in Scotland over the next couple of years could help win a few votes. It’s too late for High Speed rail, the Green Investment Bank was too small and Salmond already has his grubby workmen gloves on the Forth Crossing but maybe there’s something else that Cameron can build and have filled with pro-British sentiment.
So, plenty of food for thought from the other side of the Atlantic to carry into the next couple of years. The only other thought to add is that a black President still carries appealing power as symbolism. Perhaps the notion of the first Prime Minister of Scotland being female might add the same momentum to Yes Scotland. If only Salmond was to provide a clue that he might be retiring soon….
#1 by Iain Menzies on November 9, 2012 - 3:37 pm
You are dancing around the issue alittle here and seem to be suggesting that Obama = Salmand/SNP/Yes Scotland.
I think you are wrong.
From what i saw of the US election, tho i grant i didnt pay it all that much attention. It wasnt really at all clear what Obama was for. Other than being against Romney. Yes Scotland is the change option if you will….at this election that wasnt obama. At least not in a positive sense. There was no clear sense of what Obama style change would be in the next four years.
What the status quo (obama) candidate shows, and this may well be a message for Better Together, is that to hold your position you dont have to have policy. All you have to do is make enough people question the other side.
#2 by Jeff on November 9, 2012 - 3:46 pm
As much as I may or may not have been tempted to draw comparisons with Obama being for change and the SNP being for change, and therefore the two are the same, I’m not saying that at all in this post, other than a rather glib nod in that direction in the intro.
I agree with your last point though Iain, in a political war of attrition when both sides aren’t really saying very much, the incumbent (Obama/UK) typically has the edge.
#3 by Iain Menzies on November 9, 2012 - 4:04 pm
Well in fairness, the intro does rather set up the context for your case 😉
Actually i think you have said nothing about an issue from the US elections that could have given the yes side some more hope for the referendum.
If you look at what happen with gay marriage. The way that those campaigns have gone was very different over the last two years than they had been for a very long time before that.
To simplifie the issue for too much, the idea of gay marriage, and gays in general, was normalised. If the yes camp can shut up the head bangers effectively then you may well find that there is more of a chance for a yes than there is just now. Its not certainly the whole game for yes, but it is part of it. And no i am not saying that everyone who supports scottish independence is a head banging anti english bigot, hell some of my best friends are nats. But i do think that that aspect of the yes camp is more of a problem for your cause than many on your side would like to admit.
#4 by Jeff on November 9, 2012 - 4:10 pm
I’m not sure how, in the space of 3 comments, you’ve made this post about Cybernats so I’ll resist trying to follow your logic.
As for “I think you have said nothing about an issue from the US elections”, the main one is the importance of a good ground game and getting the vote out.
#5 by Iain Menzies on November 9, 2012 - 4:27 pm
I didnt say you havent said anthing about the us election. I said elections, as you know there was more than one. indeed there were a number of referenda going on.
One of the issues you didnt mention, not that you had to, was the various votes on gay marriage. which i said above that you didnt mention, since you didnt. Which is why i can say that cos its true….
As for it being about cybernats….i didnt say cybernats. i was talking about the more aggresive type of nationalist. the you cant be scottish unless you support indy type of nat.
The parrallel is with the gays rights activist who used, and some who still do, simply bang on about rights. who demand x, y or z. Those who won gay marriage did it, in large part by saying to straight voters who had previously rejected it by saying that they were just like them, that they loved their partners as they did. that they didnt want to take something from them, that they wanted to be like them.
Your point on the ground game is interesting, but no where near as important as i think you make it out to be. Obama won by a very narrow margin, and from a much better starting point. If yes does as well as obama in the ref, and no as well as romney then the union is fine. What im saying is that the message, and how it is devlivered, is as important, if not more so, than the number of boots on the ground.
#6 by Alec on November 9, 2012 - 6:30 pm
Aaaargh! The plural of referendum is not referenda! It’s a gerund!
And while we’re at it, C. difficile is pronounced “diffi-kee-le”… it’s not chuffin’ French!
~alec
#7 by Indy on November 10, 2012 - 10:24 am
The ground game is absolutely crucial. The Obama campaign targeted brilliantly. That’s why they won. The huge challenge for the Yes campaign is that it can’t be won by targeted voter ID. We can’t rely on the strong areas to hold the weak areas up. To win, we need to take the vast bulk of the undecideds essentially as well as getting non-voters out to vote – which in many cases will also mean getting them on the register. It is a massive logistical operation which will largely be unnoticed by the media but is absolutely vital. That’s not to say the message is not equally important – of course it is. But personal contact and building momentum is vital. People are a lot more likely to vote Yes if they know other people who are voting Yes. It really does have to be won street by street.
#8 by Nikostratos on November 9, 2012 - 5:10 pm
Lessons from America
Just used to love listening to Alistair Cooke’s radio 4 prog
brings back many happy memory’s
#9 by Alec on November 9, 2012 - 6:25 pm
In fairness, Jeff, they don’t even start there.
Setting aside questions of whether Obama can be considered Afro-American [1], to that part of American society which historically was responsible for the subjugation of Afro-Americans, he looked the part and he mixed with those who were.
So, his election and re-election was phenomenal for that reason, and is not nullified for anything you might otherwise think of his policies.
What disproportionate mistreatment has Salmond and/or the constituency he arises from experienced?
The comparison is lightweight, to say the least.
~alec
[1] Yes, his father was black, but from East Africa where any contact with a slave trade would not have been the Trans-Atlantic one; and where he [Obama] arguably experience none of the social and economic baggage which, say, Michelle did. In Britain, he’d be considered mixed race.
#10 by Chris on November 9, 2012 - 6:52 pm
The SNP seem quite good at self-congratulating themselves on their groundwork. I suspect it is more a case of getting numbers of motivated people rather than super-systems and when you are campaigning for change it is easier to motivate people. I have seen fantastic campaigns such as Labour’s in Hillhead in 1987 and Lib Dems in Kelvin in 2010. Both had lots of people.
The SNP’s self-congratulation permeated their belief that they would take power in Glasgow this year when in fact rather basic errors in tactics and on-the-ground planning stymied any chance they might have had. And also it is easy to concentrate activists in a by-election but almost impossible when you are fighting several council wards you might think you have a chance of winning. The guys in these wards will want to fight for themselves and not be diverted elsewhere.
#11 by Indy on November 10, 2012 - 10:30 am
That’s a fair point. The fact is – and we can admit it now it is all over – the SNP struggled to get activists out during the council campaign. People don’t join the SNP because they want to be in power in Glasgow City Council, it’s not what motivates them. Whereas it was and is very important to Labour.
What motivates SNP members to get out and work? I think we all know the answer to that. Looking at it from the other side, how motivated are Labour members to get out and save the Union? How many of them really deeply support the Union? There are many who do but also, I suggest, many who are fairly neutral on the subject. And some who will vote Yes.
#12 by Jeff on November 10, 2012 - 1:14 pm
I’d agree that council elections are not the prime motivator for pro Indy Nats but one can’t help but think that winning Glasgow council as a missed opportunity for the SNP. I’ve heard indirectly that 2014 could well come down to Glasgow, a large voter bloc that has the scope to be swayed one way or the other in mass. The ground game will be crucial, but the SNP showcasing its talents from Glasgow Square would certainly have helped.
#13 by Indy on November 10, 2012 - 2:07 pm
Differential voting Jeff. Labour did extremely well in Glasgow for the same reason the Obama campaign pulled it back – targeting. They got every Labour voter out whereas the SNP did not get their voters out. On a low turnout that gave Labour the victory. I am not taking anything away from them because it was a good campaign – but only 32 per cent of people voted. With the referendum, we will be looking at at a turnout of at the very least 60 per cent, possibly up to 80 per cent even in places like Glasgow.
#14 by Jeff on November 10, 2012 - 2:19 pm
Makes sense to me Indy, well put. I just hope that 48% differential is being paid particular attention by Yes Glasgow & Salmond er al as they appear to be particularly important.
#15 by thom Cross on November 9, 2012 - 9:59 pm
In the face of overwhelming white-wealth the popular subordinate masses stood for hours to vote for Obama to ensure that their weak voice could be heard in defence of their hopes and interests. The lessons for the SNP is to make it very clear to the grass-roots /traditional labour voters and all those who sit on the periphery of society-the powerless and the marginalized that an independent Scottish government will stand-up for the concerns of the least of us and against the historical power of capital ie Obama’s message.
#16 by Allan on November 9, 2012 - 11:18 pm
“Team Obama knew where their vote was and how to get it out to reach 50%. The SNP and Team Salmond are well placed to do the same on behalf of Yes Scotland”
On the whole, while there are lessons to be learned from the US Presidential Elections for Yes Scotland or for Better Togerther, they are not necessaraly new lessons. The biggest lesson though is one that nearly cost Obama the election… get your argument out there.
The quote i have picked out though is one of the comparisons that doesn’t really stack up. For one thing, people who are pro-Independence are in the minority in this country. Constant polling tells us this, there is only the odd poll that tells us that people are in favour of independence. The other thing is that it is all very well getting your voters out, but you have to convince the don’t knows and the minded no’s but not committed no’s. This is pertinant for Yes Scotland as they start behind “Better Together” in the polls, this is why I think that it was crucial that Yes Scotland got some momentum at their launch.
Iain has already hit the nail on the head regarding the biggest lesson to be learned relating to this campaign, in that both Obama and Better Together have and can afford to ask questions of the opposition and pinpoint weak points. Obama with his questions about Romney’s tax status and Better Together on the SNP’s arguments on I-Scotland’s place in the EU and the adoption of Sterling have both undermined their opponents. This leads to another lesson, one brought up by Nick Robinson – Negative Campaigning Works. Yes Scotland’s problem is that they do not have a coherent answer (so far) to Better Together’s arguments.
Two other points. Firstly, Scotland is still a very much Christian country, its just that parts of Scotland (the West & Central parts) are split between Christian sects. One sect in particular looks on in admiration at the strides made in the USA by their homegrown Christian sects in heavily influencing government and wants to do the same thing here. Unfortunately this sect has tremendous influence through our education systems.
Secondly, Sturgeon isn’t nearly ready enough to step into Salmond’s shoes & she certainly is no Obama.
#17 by EyeEdinburgh on November 10, 2012 - 4:37 pm
The SNP and Greens are not in a dissimilar situation. The parties’ collective view on gay marriage and abortion should not alter for many Christians’ historic and I would say long outdated views on society, but the parties do have a problem if Christians with no quarrel with these policies nonetheless feel uncomfortable being a part of the party.
I think you’re making the Republican mistake.
(Or possibly taking groups like “Christian Concern for our Nation” more seriously than they deserve.)
The issue of abortion is one of women’s rights. Disrespect a woman’s right to have an abortion when she needs it – as the Republican party did to huge effect – and you lose women’s votes.
To an obviously much lesser effect, since this is not the policy of the party but of the leader and the Health Secretary, this is what the SNP are doing with Alex Salmond and Alex Neil. Many Christians (including 100% of every Christian woman who ever needed an abortion) do support a woman’s right to have a safe, legal abortion at the point when she decides to have one.
As someone else noted above, at this point supporting gay marriage is pretty much just code for “progressive”. There are homophobic Christians who claim their God has a problem with same-sex couples getting married, but they’re a minority: polls in the US tend to show that Christians are more likely to suppport gay marriage than non-Christians.
I knew Barack Obama was going to win the next term when he came out in favour of gay marriage: it indicated to me that he was on top of the game, riding the incoming tide – he knew what to say and he knew when to say it, and that marks a successful politician. Alex Salmond may lack Obama’s personal charisma, but like Obama, he’s a good speaker and no one could deny he’s a very successful politician. I’d never vote for him personally because I’d never vote for any politician who’s anti-choice/against women’s rights, but I’m still undecided about independence.
No, the SNP will not convince me to vote Yes by showing up on my doorstep to tell me all about the wonders of independence. Thus far, the Tories have been doing a great job of convincing me I should vote Yes, with the LibDems as the next best at it.
#18 by Jeff on November 11, 2012 - 10:46 am
Well, I can’t be making the Republican mistake as they somehow have the vast majority of Christians on their side and, to be fair, I think you are mischaracterising* a little bit what I’m saying about SNP/Green relations with Christians. I made it very clear that both parties are on the right side of the debate when it comes to gay marriage and abortion and shouldn’t amend their policies one iota for homophobes or even old-fashioned religion (I’ll leave others to judge to what extent they are mutually exclusive).
However, the reality of the situation is that the SNP and the Greens, the two main political parties of the Yes Scotland alliance, are in danger of having a Christian problem whereby Christians don’t feel they are welcome in the party or the Yes alliance. This is not really about gay marriage and abortion, it’s about making people feel welcome and part of one single whole and I personally think that there’s a an uber-secular outlook at the moment which is ‘hip’ (for desperate want of a better word) and if you’re not in the ‘cool gang’ (Jesus wept) then you’ll be made to feel excluded. Given how sizeable the Christian bloc is in Scotland, and strictly with the referendum in mind, this is a potential problem for those who want to see a Yes victory in 2014, whether it goes against the grain to be chummy with Christians or not.
Maybe those who identify themselves as Christian vote more or less the same as those who vote non-Christian, but I’d bet otherwise and, as I say, I don’t think it’s easily ignored bigotry, ultra pro-lifers and/or homophobia that’s the reason.
As for Obama coming out in favour of gay marriage. It was the right thing to do but I did think it was unfortante, and a little bit cowardly, that he made the announcement the day after North Carolina held a referendum on the matter which failed to pass. I also suspect he chose his stance based on what the polls were saying which doesn’t give him much credit. After all, from 2008: “Obama told MTV he believes marriage is “between a man and a woman” and that he is “not in favor of gay marriage.”.
People can change their minds on things, of course, but I guess being against suited him when up against McCain and it suited him to be for when up against Romney. Good thing he doesn’t have any more elections to face…!
Also, if I may say, I think it’s interesting that you’re more disposed to vote Yes to independence to get away from the current situation rather than to step into something shiny, exciting and new. I guess in an ideal world, and this is certainly what Obama’s been trying to do, is to try to sell a vision of a future that people will buy into and, crucially, vote into. I’d always thought that therein lay Salmond’s best chances of victory so it’s interesting that you’d be more likely to be convinced to vote Yes through the Tories stuffing things up for Scotland (which, of course, can hardly hurt Salmond!). The vision thing, I thought it’d be more important than it seemingly is.
* I hope that’s not a George W Bushism, but I’ll go with it.
#19 by Braco on November 11, 2012 - 10:58 am
Why does the SNP have to convince you of anything. You are a Political blogger and so it can be assumed you are politically aware and internet savvy. The information is all out there for just such an individual to come to an informed decision about Independence, whichever side that may be. Information and documents will in the next two years be published which will need to be taken on board and may affect that decision, but again I see no need for someone like you to be dependent on being informed by any particular political parties media branch. It’s up to you as an undecided political blogger to be using your political skills, writings and interests to help inform the Independence debate from outside the currently rather closed MSM and Political Party bubble.
#20 by Braco on November 11, 2012 - 11:12 am
Sorry that was meant for EyeEdinburgh.
Pingback: Buyouts, books, Barack, bikes (and a birthday) – Scottish Roundup
#21 by Chris on November 11, 2012 - 6:30 pm
Type your comment here
Indy, you seem to be inadvertently conceding that to win the Yes vote you will need a low turnout? Are you in any position of authority or influence within the SNP as I am sure I could find someone from The Scotsman who would love to follow up with your views?
(But I won’t)
#22 by Jeff on November 11, 2012 - 8:07 pm
I read Indy’s comment quite differently. That with a superior ground game and a high turnout, the SNP would fare better in 2014.