What pro-EU parties can learn as they gear up for next year's big election.
PARIS — With next year's European Parliament election shaping up as a showdown between pro-EU parties and Euroskeptics, the race is on for both sides to find a winning edge.
For the pro-EU camp, one possible source of inspiration lies in Barack Obama's successful U.S. presidential campaigns, which managed twice to win majorities for liberal and outward-looking policies.
In the past year, French President Emmanuel Macron has portrayed himself as the great champion of the EU and further European integration. But lessons from Obama's campaigns could also apply to pan-European groups such as the center-right European People's Party (although not the part that takes its lead from Hungary's Viktor Orbán), the center-left Socialists and Democrats, and the liberal ALDE alliance.
All those groups face a formidable challenge from Euroskeptics surging at the national level in member countries. Since British voters opted to quit the EU in 2016, nationalist-minded parties have made historic gains in Germany, Austria and Italy — waltzing into government in the latter two. Even in traditionally progressive Sweden, the anti-migration Sweden Democrats are polling neck-and-neck with the mainstream parties ahead of September's general election.
So what would Obama do? POLITICO spoke with alumni of the ex-president's two successful campaigns to find out how the Obama playbook could be applied to the European election.
While migration has emerged as the hot-button issue in European politics, that doesn't mean pro-EU parties should focus on it, according to Marshall Ganz, a Harvard Kennedy School lecturer who pioneered the organizing model of the 2008 Obama campaign. "Migration is a proxy for something else," Ganz said. He said anti-migrant voters — many of whom actually rarely encounter immigrants — are drawn to the issue because it touches upon deeper feelings of insecurity and abandonment. Progressive parties, therefore, should not assume that a shift to the right is a winning formula, Ganz suggested.
"It's not that the values that drive social democracy are dead, but that they've lost connection with who their base could be, needs to be," he said.
To get at those underlying issues, don't begin with policy prescriptions. "Start in listening mode," said Lex Paulson, who managed Connecticut operations for the first Obama campaign and advises Macron's centrist La République En Marche party. He urged other pro-EU politicians to follow the example of a door-knocking campaign in France by Macron's party, which garnered 80,000 survey responses on EU topics in April and May. For those unable to mount such an undertaking, Paulson noted another resource: consultations with citizens — online and in person — being carried out by the EU.
Paulson said that the data gathered from such listening exercises is useful later for developing messages and policies that address voters' deep-held concerns.
"Leaders who are capable of driving inspiration in the moderate middle have an opportunity, in most countries, to create massive coalitions of support right now," said Michael Slaby, who was chief technology officer in Obama's 2008 campaign and chief innovation officer in his successful 2012 reelection run. Slaby estimates that roughly 60 percent of voters find themselves detached from either ideological pole and "are more open to ideas, more open to compromise, and less stratified in their opinions."
The challenge, Slaby said, is getting voters on the same page given an increasingly splintered media landscape. "Different voters experience entirely different elections," he said.
To unify these voters, leaders should bring them a fresh and inspiring message that transcends partisan quarrels, Obama campaign veterans say. "What you saw in the Obama campaigns, particularly in '08, was all kinds of new, first-time participants in politics inspired by a conversation that sounded different from what they had heard their whole lives," Slaby said.
Ganz, the organization expert, also stressed the need for a powerful over-arching message. "There's a Europe narrative that's missing," he said. "You don't counter with arguments about the budget."
The problem: Turnout in European Parliament elections is traditionally much lower than in national contests in many EU countries. The solution? Portray next year's vote as an existential moment for Europe.
Guillaume Liegey, an Obama 2008 volunteer from France, said Macron's party will win handsomely if it can replicate the French leader's success in last year's presidential election. "If Macron's first-round supporters vote, that would make En Marche the winning party by far," said Liegey, who now runs a Paris start-up that preaches Obama-style campaigning in Europe. Liegey argued that "making this thing big" would frequently be to the benefit of pro-EU advocates, particularly in countries like France with underlying pro-European majorities. In Obama's 2008 victory, turnout was its highest in 40 years — and Obama took 52.9 percent of the vote, the biggest share for a Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.
Making the European election feel as important as a national race is a tall order, however. Turnout in the first round of the French presidential election last year was 78 percent. In the last European election, in 2014, only 43 percent of French voters took part.
To get the vote out, Liegey advised trusting science. He said campaigns should base their budgets on the empirical findings of randomized campaign experiments, not gut feeling. "Intuitions shouldn't guide campaign decisions, data should," he declared.
And sometimes the science shows that old-fashioned campaigning can't be beaten, especially when the election is generally regarded as unimportant. "The best way to get out the vote, especially in low-salience elections, is to knock on doors," Liegey said.
Liegey stressed that campaign science isn't a magic bullet, but yielded powerful results for both of Obama's campaigns and Macron's surprise presidential win in 2017.
However, some successful U.S. tactics don't easily transfer to Europe, Slaby warned. "A lot of the strategies we used [in the Obama campaign] are tied to the concept of individual voter contact," he said. Tailoring messages to individual voters on the basis of personal data is much harder in Europe, where privacy laws are more stringent.
The EUropean marxists, be them straightforward from socialist parties or in disguise from EPP, ALDE & others are all history. No Obama-style last resort tricks will fool the people of Europe again.
There's an interesting bias in this article. All the advices, except the first one, is equally applicable to an EU-sceptic group.
I supposed Brok paid for his private observation Himself ?
If the EU is so great for everybody , why are they trying so hard to sell it to people .
Surely the so called benefits and Successes of its actions should sell itself .
The last thing you should do is look at Obama's campaigns. Cause he was never able to bring about that hopium of hope and change in America. First thing he did was bail out banks in America with 700 billion dollars but that was something he inherited from Bush (although he did not have to sign that into bill). Then he pulled troops from Iraq which led to the rise of ISIS. Somebody calculated that Obama dropped around 100k bombs during his presidency (Trump is already at 44k). He was not able to close Guatanamo. But most of all, he sow division in America. He could not deliver. Clinton was considered too much establishment.
If the left in Europe wants to win the elections they should put their voters first. Not migrants (ignoring the issue would only backfire), not banks, not the elites but European people.
Oh yes, Obama should be a great inspiration for europeans. Obama added almost as much debt as ALL previous americans presidents COMBINED. Bankrupting your country sure is a policy to follow ….
Like the EU needs encouragement to portray everything as an existential crisis. What isn't portrayed as an existential crisis these days?
That esentially translates into: Ignore migration and voters concerns about migration. Well, that´s what the european mainstrean been doing last decade. Didnt work out very well. Maybe european society works on different principles as american? Just guessing.
As I see it either mainstream adress voters´ concern about migration or it will be replaced. Just ask Matteo Renzi.
(a) The EPP has to exclude extreme-right members in the first place and impose transparency to parties attracted by discriminatory ideologies in order to evaluate their ability to act as trustworthy partners within the EU.
(b) The EU has to develop more socially-oriented policies ie regulate dumping and impose more stringent measures as regards free movement of EU workers.
(c) Parties such as the RN in France (and UKIP) shouldn't have been excluded because they sole objective is to destroy the EU from within and they get paid for it.
(d) In terms of accession negotiations, these must primarily focus not only on economic development but especially on respecting the rule of law and implementing measures to comply with its requirements.
(e) Structural funds and aid should only be allowed if the rule of law and basic EU values are respected.
The EU is not a club where everyone can pick what is attractive and reject what is less appealing. "I want my check back"???? On what grounds? Because you can get what you want? No way. The EU is a common adventure of countries who have avoided war conflicts on the European soil thanks to dialogue and compromise. So should it be and stay. Those who are not interested are not welcomed. We are united in diversity and so will we remain. No matter what the Orbans, Le Pens, Wilders, Salvinis pretend. Not to mention Bannon, the special US envoy who'd better stay away and keep his mouth shut. He is not welcome.
"Team Obama" is six feet under and flowers on top. What "moderation" are you talking about? What is so "moderate" about neverending austerity and hundreds of thousands of migrants let in without a basic background check?
As always, Irene Dumm's comment illustrates about everything that's wrong with the EU. Total disconnection from reality, inability to understand what democracy means and condescending arrogance towards the European electorate that in the end pays their undeserved salaries.
Are you seriously suggesting that only parties supportive of the EU and the very concept of the EU are to be allowed to stand. If you are, then in what way are the millions of voters who do not support the EU to express themselves? You appear to be attacking the very idea of democracy.
Politico will from time to time gets naive and unrealistic comments. About a year ago there was a "Vishnou", we still have Priscilla du Bleu and recently a new figure has shown up. A common characteristic of such commentators is that the more you prove them wrong, the more they will insist that they are right.
I mostly agree with Irene Duym. The voters that are anti-EU can and do vote on a national level. Their voice is carried on in EU politics by their representatives in the EU council. The problem is where to draw the line. I think every EU parliament member has to make the same pledge as the members of the EU commission and if their actions are judged to be not in line with that pledge, they should loose their seats, salaries and other EU benefits.
Reading your answer to Walter E. Kurtz I can't see the point. Learn to debate in a smart way. Stay on the subject, explain your position and keep cool. No need to write a long list of what your perceptions are about Mr. Kurtz. Attack the subject not the person. But I'm assuming that you are a mature person and thus late to learn new things.
Disclosure: I do not know Mr. Kurtz and I am not his paid agent. I am reacting to the fact that the quality of certain commentators leaves much to be desired and annoys most readers.
That is the attitude, oh Harvard professor, that led to Hillary Clinton's famous "deplorables" statement – that self-righteous, oh-so-educated (look at me, look at me, I'm so smart) that will get nowhere. How dumb politically – no matter what side you are on – have you learned nothing – evidently not. Ho-hum.
That is the attitude, oh Harvard professor, that led to Hillary Clinton's famous "deplorables" statement – that self-righteous, oh-so-educated (look at me, look at me, I'm so smart) that will get nowhere. How dumb politically – no matter what side you are on – have you learned anything- evidently not. Ho-hum.