The truth is, MoveOn is only part technology. It's also a real uprising of Liberal activists across America, sick of being sold out by their Party, sick of "Democrats in Name Only", definitely sick of losing; people who are ready not just to complain but to do something about it.
Sound Familiar?
Conservatives need a way not just to make their voices heard, but to put their words into action. The left is now almost a decade ahead, and our Beltway "leaders" are still fiddling while Rome burns down around our heads (and it's not just stupid policies and stupid marketing: you'd be shocked how many of these "gurus" have their secretaries print out their email for them!).
It's time we took our future into our own hands.
If you're the type who not only believes in conservatism but wants to do something about it, go ahead and join now (it's free). We'll keep you posted as we get closer to launch, and we'll know who we can count on when it's time to strike.
What Can I Do to Help?
America is a conservative country: our values win, it's our leaders who are losing. And if the radical left-wing minority can leverage technology to win - and win big - just think what millions of mainstream Americans could do.
Stay in touch with occasional, timely updates and alerts
Hello, this is Joe Gaylord, welcome to the audio version of my book Flying Upside Down: What Flies and What Doesn't in a Challenger Campaign. Now Flying Upside Down is not a how-to book, as in how-to succeed in politics without really trying. In fact it's more of a how not-to book. There has been a growing collection of rules of how to run a campaign, but the result of that rigid thinking has been a decline in the very ingenuity the republican party needs if we are to win more challenger races. So let's talk about reasoning our way to victory, not following a yellow brick road of rules.
The more I analyzed what successful challenger campaigns had to do in order to win, the more I came to realize that there were five basic necessities, each necessity beginning with the letter C. Confidence, creativity, contrast, controversy, capital. Yet in analyzing elections all over the country I came to believe Republican challenger campaigns have been getting, if anything worse in all five areas.
To do better, we must first understand this. Challenger campaigns are fundamentally different from incumbent campaigns and need to be run differently. Simple, obvious, perhaps, but the only explanation I can give for the poor showing of most challenger campaigns is the apparent mistake a new generation of campaign operatives have made in trying to emulate the success of incumbent campaigns. Granted, all sorts of new techniques have come out of well-financed incumbent campaigns: computerization, on-going polling, sophisticated public relations and so on. All of those things are very nice if you are an incumbent trying to make whatever marginal improvements you can to assure your re-election.
A challenger however, needs to be more entrepreneurial than managerial. Now what do I mean by that? Consider the most obvious difference between the incumbent and the challenger. An incumbent has resources and already established political operation. Tax paid staff, tax paid mailing, tax paid offices, resources that need to be managed. But the challenger starts off with nothing, he needs political entrepreneurship to create something from scratch. That's just one profound difference.
Let's consider the five "C" words again. Because each one points out an important difference between challengers and incumbents. The first, controversy. An incumbent wants to pretend there is no real contest. Hoping the voters won't wake up, but a challenger wants the opposite. Controversy, wake up voters, it's time for a change.
Number two is contrast. An incumbent wants to discourage any comparisons between the two candidates, preferring to act as if there really isn't any comparison. The unspoken message is, you don't even have to consider anyone else, because I'm doing a great job. The challenger however, needs to show a compelling contrast between the two candidates to convince a majority of voters that the incumbent should be fired and replaced by the challenger.
The third was confidence. An incumbent wants the challenger to believe what the so-called experts will argue, that the incumbent is virtually unbeatable. But the challenger needs to exude confidence to change that perception in order to attract the right people, raise the necessary money and convince reporters to cover the race.
The fourth, creativity. An incumbent wants to take a very safe scientific approach in managing his or her campaign. Let's not take any chances, he says. But the challenger needs creativity, which means taking a lot of chances to make up for the incumbent's advantages and recognition and resources.
And the fifth is capital. An incumbent learns quickly how to spend tax dollars and how to use official power to win favor with as many voters as possible. A challenger has to maximize capital by spending wisely, negotiating shrewdly and using volunteers where ever possible and devoting even more time to fund-raising. These five "C's", confidence, controversy, creativity, contrast, capital, are at the very heart of flying upside down.
Once you realize how very different a challenger campaign is from an incumbents campaign, you'll also realize that we are pioneering in new territory. If you're in politics to find security you won't want to spend much time on challenger campaigns. But if you enjoy the challenge of beating city hall, doing what the political experts usually say can't be done, define conventional wisdom, then you should think seriously about what Flying Upside Down is trying to accomplish: encouraging a brash, new political entrepreneurship.
I said that Flying Upside Down is not a how-to book, but in a way it is. Instead of getting into the technical kind of advice, step one do this, step two do that, it offers a different kind of how-to: how to avoid the mistakes commonly made by challengers. Maybe that's half the battle. If we understand what doesn't work, then hopefully we'll have an easier time tailoring solutions that do work. I've divided this advise into six categories: Meaning, Message, Media, Management, Money, Momentum.
The first category, meaning, covers all the basic realities of a challenger campaign. The second category, message, is about how you conceive the right message of contrast. The third category, media is about how you deliver the message. The fourth category, management, is about decision making in challenger campaigns, the motivating and the implementing. The fifth category, money, is about both fund-raising and spending. The sixth category, momentum, is about timing and measuring progress.
Under each category is a number of separate truisms. I use the term truism because I think this is advice that is generally considered true by successful campaign veterans. Not that it is always true, I don't want to be guilty of the very thing I deplore, making up rigid rules.
This is a new revised version of Flying Upside Down, which I originally wrote in 1988. Much of it is completely new however. The original edition was written specifically to congressional challenger candidates. But this edition is for any and all decision makers in any kind of a challenger campaign.
I should also mention that I reluctantly used "he" as an indefinite pronoun throughout the text because I thought it would be awkward to say "he or she" several hundred times. That's why I've also asked my friend and compatriot, fellow teacher and leader to help me with this presentation. Her name is Melinda Ferris. And Melinda and I will be trading off, going through truisms and then the elaborations of those truisms.
Over the years we've seen a continual strengthening of the incumbents advantage in getting re-elected. A lot of that has had to do with the tax paid advantages of staff, public relations, mass mailing and so on that incumbents support themselves. But it is time that we view the wall of advantages enjoyed by incumbents as a political imaginary line. We simply have to develop new strategy and tactics to go over, under, around and through that wall.
It begins with our attitude. When the Israelites saw Goliath, they said he's so big, we can never defeat him. But when David looked at the same giant, he's so big I can't miss. It's a matter of perspective. At all levels of government, the incumbent, Democrat goliath has gotten to be so arrogant and extreme, he's so big that we can't possibly miss. Ok, now let's start with the first category, meaning. I'm going to read each truism headline and then in this section, Melinda Ferris will elaborate on each truism.
1. A campaign is essentially persuasion. It's natural to get so caught up in the details of what you're doing that you lose sight of the main purpose of your work: that happens quite often in a campaign. For example, a campaign manager might become so busy working on computerizing a campaign that he neglects P.R. and advertising. In political short-hand that mistake is called putting mechanics over message. In other words, he focused on the mechanical side of the campaign, the computerization but lost sight of the main purpose of the campaign, reaching voters with a convincing message.
To win you have to keep your eye on the ball. A campaign is persuasion, not playing politics. It may be fun to fill a headquarters with balloons and streamers, but are you persuading people to give money to your candidate? It may be thrilling to march in a parade, but are you persuading people to sign up as volunteers? It may be fascinating to spend hour after hour studying past election results, but are you persuading voters that your candidate would do a better job than his opponent.
With all the pressure in a camaign, you will certainly get immersed in the details. At times you will undoubtedly feel frustrated, confused and perhaps even depressed. It is precisely then that you should pull yourself back and take a more objective, relaxed view of things. At that moment, ask yourself, are we spending our time and money to be persuasive or just to be impressive? You can think of it this way, a campaign is like a small communications company: communicating, selling, persuading.
2. The energy of the campaign is created by the candidate and the message. When we talk about a campaign surging forward, we use words like momentum and energy. If people don't feel that a campaign is moving and growing, they sense that it is failing. Energy is the life force of a campaign. The energy of a campaign can be explained by that famous scientific equation E=MC2. The energy of a campaign, "E" is created by "M" message, times "C" candidate, squared. In other words, multiplied by advertising, publicity, volunteers and so on. Energy equals message times candidate squared.
3. The message strategy of a campaign is to be found within a triangle of ICE. Three points of a triangle define the reality of a challenger campaign. One, the strengths and weaknesses of the incumbent, two the strengths and weaknesses of the challenger and three the likes and dislikes of the electorate.
To remember this triangle you can use the acronym I.C.E. I for incumbent, C for challenger, E for electorate. To conceive a successful message strategy in other words, the right message and the right way to deliver that message, you need to find ideas that work within the I.C.E. triangle of reality. I: begin by understanding the "I" incumbent.
Don't kid yourself by exaggerating his weaknesses and underestimating his strengths. For example, you might think he's a fool, a liar, an arrogant liberal. But if his constituents think he's an honorable, honest, humble moderate, you have to start your calculations by conceding that one of his strengths is a mis-perception of his ideology and character. Understand you can change the perception of the opponent but you first must realistically understand what that perception is.
C: next to "C" in the triangle, challenger. It is often more difficult to honestly assess the strengths and weaknesses of your own challenger candidate. Again, don't kid yourself. If you're candidate is not a good speaker, you don't want to wishfully assume that he's going to become articulate overnight. That kind of misreading can lead to miscalculation in strategy such as wasting your time trying to force a debate you don't really want.
E: finally the "E" electorate. You want to understand how the electorate views all relevant issues. How it views a particular office and so on. Don't assume that old polling results and old election results still hold true. You want to understand today's hot button issues that turn voters on and off. Somewhere within that triangle of I.C.E. is a successful message strategy. Of course, then there's the hard part: figuring it out.
4. A persuasive campaign draws on four resources: time, money, people, ideas. Two of those resources can be budgeted, time and money. You can schedule your time while still being flexible enough to take advantage of unexpected opportunities and you can budget your money while still being flexible and allowing for unexpected windfalls and sort falls in the fundraising.
The other two resources however, cannot be budgeted and calculated in advance: people and ideas. You can't really estimate the talent or potential of people. And the same is true with ideas. You can't budget or calculate ahead of time what new possibilities will open up to you as a result of new ideas about issues, research, advertising, publicity and strategy. We can call time and money the demand side of a campaign. Time and money are both very limited, measurable resources and they demand a lot of budgeting in order to make the best use of them. But people and ideas are the supply side of a campaign. They are virtually unlimited in possibility. So instead of budgeting them, you need to concentrate on encouraging them.
5. There are five "C's" in contemporary, challenger campaigns. The more I've analyzed successful challenger campaigns the more I rediscover those five "C" words I mentioned. I see them as the basic necessities of a challenger campaign. Unfortunately many GOP challenger campaigns do poorly in all five areas. We've got to change that.
Confidence. We need the kind of brash, entrepreneurship that loves to accomplish what experts often argue is impossible: beating an entrenched incumbent. GOP operatives often discourage an enthusiastic candidate without meaning to by telling him every technical thing they think he should do and setting up hurdles they'd like him to jump. So much money raised by certain dates, so much support in the polls by certain dates, etc. They end up taking the wind out of his sails, yet his confidence is vital to success. In politics, just as in starting a new business, optimism is reality.
Creativity. Republicans often take more pride in management than in creativity, but in challenger campaigns at least, that has to change. The GOP needs to encourage political entrepreneurship. That means our campaigns need to be creative, risk-taking and innovative. This is necessary because if the challenger plays by the incumbent's rules, he loses. He has to change the rules in order to win and the only way you can do that is by taking risks and experimenting.
Contrast. An election is about making a choice, the contest becomes who will frame that choice. If the challenger allows the incumbent to frame the choice then voters will be considering a contrast like this: Do I want an experienced guy who accomplishes wonderful things or do I want the inexperienced guy who couldn't accomplish anything? If it's the challenger framing the choice, voters will consider a contrast like this: Do I want the dishonest, too-liberal incumbent, or do I want the trustworthy, moderate new guy.
As obvious as this need to sell the right contrast might seem, many GOP challengers fail to do it because they are too polite, or because they have an aversion to the following "C" word: Controversy. Republicans are often uncomfortable with the unpleasantness and unpredictability of public argument and political confrontation. But today's political debate is mostly through news coverage rather than formal discussion on stage with a moderator. So challengers have to learn to create and sustain the right kind of controversy. Drawing attention to their message of contrast with the incumbent.
Capital. Raising money is difficult. Spending money is easy. Too many challenger campaigns waste early money on expensive overhead and don't get enough bang for the buck in their advertising. There's an entire section in this book on money, but capital doesn't only mean cash, it also means using resources like volunteers and maximizing capital by shrewd budgeting, price negotiation and cost effective fundraising.
6. Politics is not a science: it's an art form that uses some scientific tools. Some Republican strategists have been so successful in applying new technology to political campaigns that they have gone overboard in trusting computer data more than common sense. It seems that they only trust the things they can control: advertising, not publicity; staff, not volunteers; direct mail, not door to door campaigning. As they've been smitten by the scientific side of politics, they've come to distrust the art of politics.
But politics can never be wholly scientific anymore than voters can be totally predictable. People are too complex to be predictable. We have an emotional side, a mental side, a physical side and I believe a spiritual side. Any good strategy must take into account the unlimited possibilities of politics as an art form. The entertaining theater of ideas and people and not just the scientific probability that make political work more efficient.
7. The viability of a candidate is not found in early polling results, but rather in the candidate's integrity, determination and ideas. There are countless stories of unknown candidates starting out at 1% in the polls and then defying all predictions, ending up victorious. Some of them were outspent by their opponent ten to one, some of them had to overcome the opposition of big city machines, some of them had newspapers harassing them once they started rising in the polls. Yet, they prevailed.
Almost overnight unknowns can be knowns, and popular incumbents can be unpopular losers. So don't be discouraged by early polls, they report opinions held in the past, they don't project the results of elections to be held in the future. What makes a candidate viable is a candidate's integrity, determination and ideas. You have to put your faith in the ability of enough people to recognize by election day that your candidate is superior to his opponent. That realization might not take hold until the final week or even the final days of the contest. But you should work with the faith and confidence that it will happen because that is the way you can help make it happen.
8. An ideal candidate has thick skin, quick reflexes, inspiring vision, keen hearing, fast legs, strong back, firm handshake and a good heart. Let's also add a strong ego. By strong ego, I mean someone who is self-motivated and confident. I do not mean egotistical. By strong ego I mean the sort of person who doesn't come unglued when attacked by an opponent in the newspaper or who loses hope when a poll shows him 30 points down.
In truth, there's no such thing as an ideal candidate. Certain kinds of personalities are appealing in some areas but not in others. Certain occupational backgrounds are appealing to some voters, but unimpressive to others. There are many factors that determine a candidate's appeal. His sincerity, accomplishment, his contrast to the opponent. Still if pressed to describe the quality that make a candidate successful, I would suggest the following: someone who is resilient, someone who has stamina, someone who shows leadership and honesty, someone who is persuasive, someone who understands both people and ideas, someone who can make others feel good about themselves, someone who understands who he speaks for, who understands who wins when he wins: in other words, the coalition of voters who share his values.
9. The candidate is the head of the campaign: the owner, the chief asset, the major fund-raiser and the prime vote getter. There are rewards to being a candidate that are unique to the political profession. The excitement and drama of making history, the exhilaration of winning, the fulfillment of making friends out of strangers, the satisfaction of debating ideas, the challenge of leading by example. But it can be an exhausting, difficult job. A candidate has many responsibilities in a campaign and he's the person ultimately held responsible.
To understand the many roles a candidate must play, perhaps the best analogy would be the theater. The candidate is the star of his own play, but also the producer, the owner of the company and final script writer. He's the one who takes all the bows at the curtain calls, but he's also the one the critics go after in the reviews. As the producer, the candidate has to chose the right kind of director and approve the rest of the cast. He must know when to delegate authority, yet must always realize he is ultimately responsible. It is his name on the ballot and his name on the checkbook. As the producer he's also the chief fundraiser. The candidate is the best fundraiser. People give money to the candidate that they won't give to anyone else and so he has to learn to ask for money from friends, relatives and complete strangers. And as the star of the play, he is the chief vote-getter.
10. For a challenger to defeat an incumbent there is one risk that can't be taken: not taking any risks. A successful challenger campaign is characterized by creative strategy, sustained aggressiveness and innovative tactics. All of those traits require taking risks. That is why an anti-incumbent strategy is more often compared to guerilla war than to conventional war.
That is the final thought of the first category of the book, meaning. Now we go onto the second category, message.
11. A challenger must demonstrate three things when running against an incumbent: contrast, contrast, contrast. An election is simply this, making the choice. Most incumbents naturally would like to pretend that there is no real choice. They prefer to ignore the challenger in the hope that reporters and voters will ignore him. The challenger wants the opposite. To beat the incumbent he needs to convince reporters that he's worth covering and he needs to convince voters that it's time for a change. The reality is this, if the challenger doesn't frame the choice, what the choice is all about, the contrast between candidates, voters are not likely to reject the better known, experienced incumbent. As with our system of justice, most voters of justice presume an incumbent is innocent unless proven guilty.
Despite the need for a challenger to be aggressive when drawing a contrast, it is surprising how many fail to do so. Many challengers are so uncomfortable with controversy and criticism, they eagerly believe naive friends who advise them, just be positive, don't mention the other guy, people only want to hear what you've done. Too bad it isn't true.
Following the 1986 elections, Fred Barnes, a conservative columnist, wrote: "Given their thick-headedness, Republicans fell for all the pious condemnations and negative ads and missed the real lesson of the 1986 election. No, the lesson is not that negative TV spots don't work, it's that they do and you'd better get on the air with them and fast."
A so-called negative ad is not necessarily perceived by voters as something negative. A negative ad will often simply reveal that the opponent voted a certain way or took a certain position. Reviewing fact might be considered negative by the candidate about whom it is revealed, but the voters often value it as something very positive. In fact helping them make an informed choice. After all, democracy is meaningless without information being made public and then debated. As long as the information is fair, accurate and germane, it is usually legitimate to advertise it. This is especially true when the ad shows both sides. For example, the incumbent voted one way, the challenger would vote the opposite way, that's called a comparative or contrast ad. Such an ad can convey a variety of themes, youth versus age, liberal versus conservative, honest versus dishonest. The bottom line is this, contrast is vital, otherwise voters see no reason to fire the incumbent and until they hear a reason they're not ready to hire the replacement.
12. Understand what makes your opponent vulnerable to defeat. To develop the right strategy, you need to understand what makes the incumbent vulnerable. You may detest your opponents ideology or personality or lack of character, but what matters most is what the voters perceive, so don't let your own personal feelings cloud your judgement about what makes the opponent beatable. To evaluate your opponents vulnerability you can begin by considering these ten factors:
1. Has he lost touch with voters?
2. Does he have an offensive personality?
3. Does he suffer or might he soon suffer from scandal?
4. Are his accomplishments meager?
5. Does he have poor relations with the media or does he project poorly through the media?
6. Does overall party registration or voter turnout work against him?
7. Is his ideology out of sync with most voters?
8. Will he have a problem raising enough money?
9. Does he perform poorly under pressure and in handling criticism?
10. Is he less active due to age, health or apathy?
If you can't honestly answer yes to at least one or two of these questions, you're probably not going to win. If voters don't see a reason to fire an office holder, they usually vote to retain him. As the campaign progresses you will of course learn the strengths and weaknesses of your opponent in great detail. The earlier you do, the better your chances will be of devising the winning strategy.
13. Republicans have the advantage of greater unity, but the Democrats work hard to divide and conquer.
Three major propositions have united the modern day Republican Party. You can remember them this way: GOP! Growth, Opportunity, Peace. The proposition about growth is basically this, holding the line on taxes and on unnecessary government spending will help stimulate economic growth. The proposition about opportunity is basically this, that the traditional values of family, work and excellence are essential to restoring the greatest possible opportunity for all Americans. And the proposition about peace is basically this, that a strong America improves the prospects for peace.
Republican candidates will be more successful if they can focus public attention on these larger ideas that unite people rather than those issues that divide us into small fractions of opinion. It's best to appeal to that 80% of the electorate that agrees with basic Republican principles: that the average taxpayer is not under-taxed, that America is not what's wrong with the world, that violent crime is not going to be stopped by coddling criminals, etc. At the same time, Republican candidates should be aware of emerging issues among would-be supporters. Democratic campaigns and liberal editorialists will pounce on any opportunity to divide and conquer.
14. The issues most important to voters can be the most irrevelent.
How can an issue be important and a concern to voters and be irrevelent at the same time? First these issues will usually not serve to distinguish one candidate from another. Everyone will be in favor of reducing the deficit, opposing crime, promoting peace. But unless an issue will distinguish your candidate from the opponent, in a way that is favorable to your candidate, it isn't very useful no matter how important it is.
The second reason that important issues can be of limited value is that the public is deeply skeptical about the ability of one person to make a significant difference on these issues. Voters don't really believe that one congressman alone is going to balance the budget and stop violent crime, or bring about utopia. In fact, over-promising on these issues can sometimes create a backlash in the mind of the voters. They come to think of the candidate as foolish and a windbag. That distrust can in turn undermine the candidate's credibility on other matters. So keep in mind the importance of an issue is only one consideration in evaluating it's tactical value.
15. To control the campaign agenda you need to get the media and your opponent talking about your issues. In discussing strategy you'll often hear the phrase, "control the agenda". That means you want the media and your opponent and voters to be talking about the issues that favor you.
For example, if your opponent is a liberal tax-a-holic who passed popular child care legislation, you obviously want people to be talking about his addiction to taxes, not his child care program. Now in reality, of course, you can't control what people talk about, but you have to try to keep the media and your opponent talking about your issues, so you call the news conferences and unveil new advertising and give speeches in order to control the agenda.
Your opponent naturally will try to do the same. He will constantly be trying to shift attention away from your strongest issues onto your weakest. If you have him on the ropes because he's voted against every proposed tax cut, he may well hit back at you by claiming that you would vote against programs to clean up toxic waste site, or whatever.
Many campaigns hit the panic button when that happens. Staffers and supporters see some negative publicity about their candidate and suddenly the pressure builds to answer the charges. Sometime you should mitigate the damage by answering, but a candidate should be very careful not to become reactive to his opponent's strategy. Every day and dollar you spend talking about the other guy's issues is a day and dollar not spent promoting your own.
16. If your opponent is not well-defined in the minds of voters, do the defining for him. When you analyze polling data about your opponent, keep in mind that the less the voters know about him, the bigger your opportunity to define him. Even when a high percentage of voters tell a pollster that they favor someone's re-election, if they can't think of anything substantive about that incumbent, the better the chance the challenger has to fill up that blank slate.
17. Campaigns that attach little importance to research end up paying for it in big mistakes and lost opportunities. Opposition research is often the key to victory and it should be assigned to someone who has the time and know-how to do it thoroughly. An experienced campaign consultant pointed out that the saddest words in politics are not what might have been, the saddest words are "Oops, I guess I should have checked that." Small errors in fact will do more to damage your campaign than the original attack ever could have done to your opponents.
The problems most campaigns have with opposition research is that they spend too much time looking for the big knock out punch, the one piece of information which will be so damaging that the opposition will simply crumple. That almost never happens: even with Gary Hart and Joe Biden, their campaigns collapsed because of accumulated reports of misconduct, not just one incident.
The first step in research is examining the public record. If the local newspaper does not have a readily available morgue, your local library is a good secondary source. After you've clipped all of the news stories about your opponent and filed them in meaningful categories, your next step is talking with the old timers, the people who have been involved in the political process for a long time. They know where the bodies are buried. Early on you should somehow obtain a copy of your opponent's resume. A lie on a resume can be fatal to the candidate. Check the accuracy of every claim, check any lawsuits against him and so on. If he has a legislative record, check how he voted on controversial issues, check his attendance record, did he miss key votes. Also check taxpayer sponsored junkets, voting for his or her own pay raise, voting for new or higher taxes, not living in the district, involvement in a scandal, campaign contributions, honoraria and gifts. Compare his past rhetoric with past promises and his actual performance. Above all triple check every fact before you attack.
18. You actually have to research two candidates: your opponent and yourself. Just as you will be researching your opponent, so too will your opponent be researching you. So the best way to anticipate and prepare for his attacks on your candidate is to know your candidate's weaknesses and perceived weaknesses.
No one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes, but you better know your candidate's mistakes in advance if you are to defuse and minimize those mistakes when the opponent issues a press release or leaks that information. If the charge is true, but old, or if the charge is trivial or unfair or irrevelent, fine. But you'd better not be caught off guard or your own over-reaction or under-reaction can give credence to the attack. People can be very forgiving if they feel that the candidate is basically honest and well-intentioned, but not if they feel that you have lied to them. So sit down with the candidate in advance and talk about anything that might be dredged up against him, them be prepared to explain it in a simple, honest way.
19. The better an issue is for you and the more harmful it is to your opponent, the more careful you should be in verifying it's accuracy and stating it correctly. Research must be accurate and that takes a lot of work. Let's say that someone discovers in an old issue of a newspaper, a really foolish quote by your opponent. A good researcher will then check letters to the editor and corrections, retractions for the two week period following that's quote's appearance, to make certain the newspaper didn't make a mistake. How would you like to be standing before a room full of reporters, slamming your opponent for a foolish statement, then have a reporter point out that the quote was retracted by the newspaper as an error in reporting. So check your facts, double check them, then check them again.
20. A poll is only as good as it's interpretation. Surveys of public opinion can help you understand which issues are most likely to move voters into your camp. It's not just a matter of seeing which issues draw the highest amount of public support: 71% of the voters sampled may agree with you on an issue like removal of parking meters, but it might be an issue that they don't really care about. What you really want a poll to reveal is, what are the cutting issues, what issues cut in your favor and against your opponent. In other words, what are the issues that would cause undecided voters and independent voters and even some supporters of your opponent to decide to vote for you.
Polling results often surprise you. Some issues you assume will be the most persuasive, turn out not to change many voters minds. Other issues, less important in your view, cut strongly in your favor, so it's not enough to skim through the polling results. You need an expert reading of that poll, a reading between the lines so to speak, and that usually requires the knowledge of someone, not only astute about polling, but also familiar with the politics of your contest.
A word of caution about early polling: it can be a waste of money and very demoralizing. To get good value from a poll, you need to ask the right questions; in order to know the right questions you first need to do some basic research about your opponent, pertinent issues and the district. Only then can your pollster craft intelligent questions that will reveal useful insights; and if you're a relatively unknown candidate taking your poll in the hopes of encouraging numbers, think again. You take the risk of being demoralized and demoralizing others in your campaign. Do your research first, then once you commission your poll, keep your expectations low. Poll numbers can change radically in your favor in the course of an election. Especially if you use polling wisely, not as a crystal ball but as a helpful guide.
21. What makes a poll reliable is not the number of people interviewed but the quality of the questions asked. Polls can be very revealing, but they can be very misleading if the right questions are not asked.
An example: when Ted Kennedy was considering a run against incumbent President Jimmy Carter in 1980, the polls gave Ted a two to one lead. But that was because voters were simply asked a head to head question: "whom do they prefer between the two Democrats." A different pollster however, followed that question with one reminding the person being polled of Chapaquidic and then asked which Democrat the person preferred for president. Immediately Ted Kennedy dropped 10 percentage points in that poll.
Liberal Democrats and liberal journalists had to learn the very same lesson all over again eight years later when another Bay State Democrat ran for president. Mike Dukakis had a 17% lead at the time he was nominated at the August Democratic convention. The Republicans who knew his actual record, knew better. They knew from focus group studies and from a common sense understanding of the electorate that once Dukakis's smug "I know what's best" liberal positions were made known his support would quickly erode. They knew that his support of weekend furloughs for convicted felons, his support of higher taxes, his support of ACLU liberalism were not really known to most Americans, and when that record was known the question "Do you support Michael Dukakis" would bring a very different result.
In framing good polling questions it is important to anticipate the argument that voters might hear in the course of the campaign to learn not just what they think at the time the poll is conducted, but how their thinking might change once they hear both sides.
22. It is said there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics; but only polling can combine all three. Another way that polling can be misleading is when people lie, consciously or not to the pollster. Shortly after the Gary Hart-Donna Rice affair exploded in the news, a poll was taken. It found that 70% of American's thought that Gary Hart's private conduct was not relevant to his presidential candidacy. A second poll showed that by a six to one margin, voters agreed that violating the campaign finance laws was a more serious offense by a candidate than adultery.
Come on, let's be real. Can anyone seriously believe that People Magazine would run a cover story about Gary Hart violating the campaign finance laws? Or that viewers would flock to watch the news and Nightline to learn the intimate details about improper record keeping? Common sense tells us that most people are disturbed by adultery in a presidential candidate and are more disturbed than they care to admit either to themselves or to others.
Certain issues illicit a kind of automatic acceptable response from the voters. Yes, I favor peace, believe in racial harmony and oppose prying into anyone's private life.
There are two lessons here, first, be careful in relying on public responses when fashionable issues have a strong moral or personal aspect to them. Second, however, never ignore the general importance of fashionable morality. You do so at your own risk.
23. To discover a new political issue, candidates should try trolling rather than polling. When voters are asked by a pollster, which issues they consider most important, they tend to give conventional, predictable answers. The deficit, inflation, if it is too high or rising, crime, etc. After all, these are the issues that they read about in the newspapers and hear about on television. They come to mind easily especially when some stranger at the end of a telephone line is asking for an immediate answer to such a broad question.
Often the most effective issues for a candidate may be those that barely show up in polls. Issues where people feel strongly but don't yet realize it. A candidate who recognizes one of these hidden issues can emerge both as a perceptive leader and as the main spokesman for that issue. Candidates who go door to door campaigning and who take time to listen to what people have to say, their worries, their suggestions, their complaints, can get an intuitive sense of the public's mood. By truly listening to hundreds of people you will in effect, conduct your own in depth poll. Unlike telephone surveys however, by talking casually with people in their own comfortable surroundings you can detect how deeply they care about a given issue and what they realistically hope you might do about it. We call this trolling for issues rather than polling for issues.
24. Test drive an issue before buying. There are several ways to test a potential issue, first through actual first-hand discussion with voters in the course of campaigning. A candidate or volunteer can meet and talk with hundreds of people in a single day. Second, through newspaper columns and letters to the editor, if people feel strongly about an issue you will undoubtedly find ample evidence in local newspapers. Third, through focus groups, a group of people selected at random by a pollster and persuaded for some nominal fee to come to a conference room with other voters, also selected at random, and discuss political questions, posed by a neutral moderator. As the focus group discusses issues in this way, it can be very revealing about the emotional dimensions of an issue. Fourth, through various studies done by universities, chambers of commerce or special interest groups. Fifth, by taking a public opinion poll. Some campaigns make the mistake of conducting such surveys as their first and only mean of understanding issues of concern by the voters. It's a useful tool of course, but not the only tool. Usually it is a combination of these methods that will best help shed light on which issues work to your advantage. Because each method uncovers information in a different way.
25. Most people are not ideological. Most people do not interpret political reality, events and candidates and issues in terms of abstract principles. They more often view politics in very personal terms, rather than philosophical terms. That's one of the reasons for example, that people were moved by Colonial Oliver North's persona in his televised hearings, more than they were moved by Judge Robert Bork's intellect in his televised hearings. The point is, those immerced in politics day after day, often lose our sense of perspective. We forget that most people do not live in our abstract world, where words and arguments are reality.
26. People vote not only their pocketbooks, but their families, their safety and their idealism. It is an old cliche in politics that people vote their pocketbooks. Like all cliches it became one because it contains a large dose of truth in what it says. But if it were absolutely true, then how have the Democrats, the party of higher taxes, controlled the Congress for so many decades?
A great many values tug at voters, money, family, safety, idealism. One could argue that most people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to vote for their self-interest and altruism all at the same time. In 1980 Ronald Reagan blended both self-interest and altruism by arguing that tax cuts were best for everyone because they provided the incentive for and made possible economic growth. He pointed out that economic growth is necessary if we are to produce the wealth needed to care for the disadvantaged. It was a far more edifying way to frame the issue that simply telling people, you made it, you keep it. He reached people in terms of self-interest, but he also gave them moral justification for it. So appeal to both conscious and creature comforts, self-interest and public interest.
27. If you have political dynamite to throw at your opponent make sure that stick of dynamite is not shaped like a boomerang. More than one politician has survived an attack from his opponent by counter-charging dirty politics and mudslinging. Indeed several candidates have even used the same TV spot to counterattack. A commercial where mud is slung at the poster of a candidate, then the mud disappears as a voiceover tells the truth about the maligned candidate. As voters have become better educated, they have become more resentful of unfair politics, especially when it is a personal attack.
Does this mean that negative, character issues rarely work in politics? That depends. They are most damaging when someone, other than the opposing candidate or his staff -- preferably the press -- raises the issue.
But what if you have some explosive, legitimate issue to use on your opponent? In that case, here is some advise. First run aggressively against your opponent as early as possible. If you have to run as a low-key gentle candidate for most of the campaign and then suddenly go on the attack with a controversial issue in the final weeks, both the press and the public may see you as a desperate candidate, someone who is willing to do anything to win. Second, before you use the explosive issue, start with issues less controversial which guarantee that most voters will be on your side. In this way, you will establish greater credibility. Third, if you begin attacking your opponent with a controversial issue, never back off the attack. If you do, voters will almost certainly interpret your retreat as an admission that either your facts or your tactics were wrong.
28. Issues that appeal only to a minority of voters can sometimes add up to a majority of voters on election day. FDR and other Democrats have shown that elections can be won by appealing to disparate groups which, when put together, add up to a majority. Ronald Reagan and other Republicans succeeded by appealing to a so-called silent majority, rather than to sub-groups.
It is an interesting difference. In plotting strategy, Democrats usually begin by thinking of groups of voters they need to turn on and turn out to make a majority coalition. Very specialized interest groups such as government employee unions, elderly voters in public housing, feminist and gay rights activists, various ethnic groups, etc. But when Republicans think about a winning majority they often think of an overall majority of opinions rather than component groups that might comprise it.
I think the difference between the two ways of thinking helps explain why in recent elections the Republicans have won the White House, while the Democrats have won more local offices. Republicans think in terms of macro issues, that affect the vast majority, while Democrats think in terms of micro issues that appeal to special, more parochial interests. The more local the issue, the more people think about their self-interest rather than the national interest. Republicans should continue to fight to keep the focus of debate on the larger issues, where Americans truly share traditional Republican values; however, for Republicans to be more competitive locally, our candidates also need to emulate successful Democrats in addressing people, not just as individual citizens interested in large national themes, but also as self-interested members of groups concerned about specific matters affecting their future.
There's nothing wrong with targeting specific interest groups like the elderly, veterans, neighborhood groups, etc, as well as appealing to the public as a whole. The best strategy combines both the Democratic special interest focus and the Republican general interest focus. Most voters think on both levels.
29. Forget the KISS (of "keep it simple stupid") and remember instead to keep it smartly simple. You have to make your points clearly and simply if you're going to have any hope of being on the six o'clock news or if you want to communicate your message on a 60-second radio commercial.
The irony is this: it takes much longer to say something much shorter. It's easy to go on and on about an issue, but it's painfully difficult to compress your thoughts into a few persuasive words. A good illustration of why this is so essential in politics is the 1980 presidential election. Many voters still recall the basic message of the Reagan candidacy: "Let's make America strong again and we must cut taxes and wasteful spending to get the economy growing again". But what do people remember about Jimmy Carter's message? Did he really have one? Keep it smartly simple.
George Bush demonstrated the same thing when he beat Mike Dukakis in 1988. The Bush campaign advertised the contrast between the two candidates in simple, smart terms. Dukakis was a Massachusetts liberal who supported furloughs for first degree murders, who vetoed a pledge of allegiance bill, who didn't even clean up his own harbor and who, while posing in a tank actually opposed most defense programs. Bush by contrast, was tough on crime, a World War II hero, and so on.
It is important not to confuse a simple message with a simple-minded message. Don't give in to the temptation of offering simple solutions to obviously complicated problems. People can see through that and candidates then lose their credibility. Keep it simple, but keep it smartly simple.
Now we move onto the third category. Media.
30. Television and every other medium is only as powerful as the message advertised through it. The classic example of the power of television in politics is the infamous daisy commercial meant to strike fear in the hearts of Americans regarding 1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. The spot showed a young girl picking a daisy; suddenly the tranquil view was displaced by a mushrooming nuclear explosion.
Subtle it was not, but the commercial was so potent that Lyndon Johnson's campaign pulled it after broadcasting it only once. That's all they had to air it for it to have it's desired effect. Public controversy about the commercial kept it fresh in voters minds after that.
But that raises a question, was it the power of TV that made such an impact in that case, or was it the power of the message itself? Now that particular message could only have worked effectively on TV, but such is not always the case. The creator of that spot was Tony Swartz, a media recluse in New York who has done many Democratic television campaigns; but ironically he is a great believer in radio for political persuasion.
Radio has some advantages over television. Someone listening to a 60 second radio spot can often follow the reasoning of the narration better than when distracted by visuals in a 30 second TV spot. Radio commercials are cheaper to produce, the air time is less expensive, commercials can be targeted to very specific audiences and spots can be produced within hours when you need to respond quickly.
Newspaper ads also afford certain unique advantages. When you want to reach opinion leaders with a message not easily reduced to 30 or 60 seconds of talk, a well-designed newspaper ad can accomplish that. Newspaper readers tend to vote more often, they tend to be better informed and more interested in politics. Creative eye-catching newspaper ads can stir useful controversy by making a persuasive case against the opponent with documented proof. The bottom line is this, any medium is the best if the message works best in it.
31. Your image as a candidate should not be based on what you think people want, but rather on what you are. Television has been called an x-ray machine because viewers can usually see through insincere, pretentious people. Candidates are being x-rayed by people all the time, on or off the tube. That's not because people want to see through you, but rather they want to know whether they can believe you and then believe in you. The lesson in all this is very simple. Be yourself. If you're genuine, if you're not trying to be something you're aren't, you'll stand out and be respected. A smart campaign will stay in character with the candidate.
32. Fights make news, shyness doesn't. Sometimes it seems that Republicans by nature are shy, and they tend to shy away from controversy; but Republican challengers need to overcome their inherent shyness and politeness if they are to prevail in the arena of political combat.
Perhaps the best example was the 1988 Bush for President campaign. The Democrats and many in the media painted the then Vice President as a wimp. They knew he had shown great courage in World War II and many of them knew the private George Bush well enough to know how unfair they were being. Yet, when George Bush came on as a warrior and forceful leader in his own right, leading the charge against the wimpy liberalism of Michael Stanley Dukakis, these same people who had slandered George Bush started whining about the unfairness of his being too aggressive. What hypocrisy.
Frankly, some Republican candidates make the mistake of worrying too much what friends and neighbors and the so-called country club set might think if they go negative and get aggressive. Democratic opponents are aware of this concern and often arrange to get League of Women voters types to complain vigorously to the Republican candidate. "I've always been a loyal Republican" they invariably say, true or not, "but this kind of negative campaigning is awful and all of my friends are turned off by it," blah, blah, blah. Many sincere Republican candidates -- despite their early resolve to be tough -- then buckle under to these complaints. Unlike Bush who fought his way back from a 17 point deficit in the polls, they stop attacking. They discover that they didn't have the stomach for confrontation and controversy and they give up without a fight.
To win, Republicans have to overcome their aversion to controversy and learn to take the fight to the other side.
33. Before launching a new idea to attract attention, first evaluate what kind of attention it will likely attract. Every challenger campaign needs to spark the kind of news coverage that will give it a lift and momentum. But before launching a new idea to accomplish that, be sure you've considered all the possible consequences.
To evaluate an idea, consider the following: will it enhance the candidate's image and reputation? Is it consistent with the strategy and schedule? Will it interest reporters and can it be sustained to keep their interest? Does it help or at least not hurt efforts to raise money? Does it help attract workers and does it help keep the morale up? Does it help draw attention to the right issues? Does it appeal to your target voters? Will it reinforce the advertising? Does it help demoralize the opposition? Is it accurate and fair so that it can withstand scrutiny and debate?
Now few ideas will accomplish all of the above, but you at least want to consider all the angles beforehand, then decide whether to proceed.
34. All reporters are biased and their bias is for news. Many Republican candidates assume that reporters are all liberal and therefore all predictably hostile and unfair. Yes, according to confidential surveys taken of the nation's top journalists, there is indeed a cultural liberal bias. It is encouraging to note, however, that the younger reporters are not so predictably liberal as many reporters of the 1960's generation. The younger reporters tend to be skeptical of all politicians and all ideology equally. They tend to be more libertarian. But as a matter of practical politics the bias among reporters that is more important is their bias for news. Give reporters something provocative and newsworthy to cover and they'll cover it. Even if they disagree with you on most issues, they want to see a contest. Their work is boring without one and believe it or not, most reporters try to be fair. They know it's unprofessional not to be.
35. Candidates need to read as regularly as students because they are tested everyday. There should be time reserved in a candidate's schedule for daily reading in order to keep up with current events and current thinking. Ideally a candidate should read newspapers, magazines and books, underlining significant ideas, facts and arguments. Those that are relevant for possible speech material or debate material can be put into a notebook. Someone skilled in dealing with issues can then organize that material along with other information. That issues notebook can help the candidate quickly bone up for things like editorial board meetings, news conferences, one-on-one press interviews, as well as debates. Candidates are students as well as teachers.
36. Before any news conference or media interview, play 20 questions. Before you go on record with words that may later haunt you, try to anticipate the questions reporters might ask. For example, if you're announcing your candidacy, you'd better be ready to answer questions like these: Why did you decide to run? What are you main qualifications? What issues are you going to advertise? Have you done any polls or seen any poll results? What's your strategy? Where do you stand on fiscal issues? Will you be running negative advertising? If elected, what do you hope to accomplish? The point is, try to anticipate as many questions as you can so you can be ready with good, quotable answers.
37. Attacking you can be the nicest thing an opponent will do for you. Every attack by the opponent is an opportunity for counter-attack. You take the media attention that his attack will generate for you and use it to your advantage. But you don't have to be rude or deadly serious to turn back an attack. Indeed to be humorous and sincere can be much more effective in making the attacker look bad. However, you have to be factual and serious in refuting serious charges against you: you can't just give a quip if you're accused of something unethical.
Keep in mind that the candidate doesn't have to answer charges personally. A campaign spokesman can set the record straight and usually if it's just a spokesman rather than the candidate, reporters tend to give it less coverage. A story about feuding candidates is considered newsworthy by editors. A story about a press secretary refuting a candidate is usually not big news. And when criticism is shot at you, don't over-react, and make sure you heard the charges correctly, word for word.
Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly
Post to Del.icio.us
Digg This Page