Public Relations in the Internet Age

Part 6 of our 10-part series: “21st Century Campaigning”

In 2005 a dramatic development took place in the history of news service. Garrett Graff, a 23-year-old blogger for Media Bistro’s “Fishbowl DC” was granted a daily pass to be part of the White House Press Corps. One White House spokesman admitted that he had never heard of a blogger being given such a prominent place in the media world before.

As we all know, the past five to ten years has been tough on the newspaper industry. Even before Graff entered the White House for press conferences, newspaper readership was declining with the growing popularity of the internet.

In December last year, the Pew Research Center found that - for the first time - more Americans were getting their news from the internet than newspapers. Young people were driving this transition, with 59% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 30 reading news online - an incredible 25% jump since September 2007.

What does this mean for political campaigns?

Little in the blogosphere is such a popular topic as politics (heck, you’re reading a political blog right now). And as blogs continue to grow in relevance, many PR firms - as well as campaigns - are beginning to rethink how they reach out to information providers.


From an article on MediaShift, which tracks the online news revolution:

[Adam] Ritchie [who works in brand promotion] explained that in the old PR world, the agency would simply place the news in traditional outlets and be done with it. But with the new model, once you've placed the story, you've opened a new phase of work -- and that's when the social media part begins. You then take that news story from a trusted outlet and begin trying to spread it into the blogosphere and social news sites, drawing more eyeballs to it than the publication's typical audience.

But how do they approach these bloggers and social media users? Almost everyone I spoke to for this piece immediately agreed that most bloggers think very differently than traditional journalists; they tend to shy away from the old methods that PR people have in the past used to engage reporters. Ritchie said that he hasn't sent out a press release in years, going so far as to say, "I don't believe in press releases."

"A lot of blogs will pick up a press release, and it's true that press releases have found new life among indie bloggers that are hungry for content," he said. "But quality writers for quality blogs aren't going to regurgitate a press release, and you're not winning in the long run by sending the press release to small and independent bloggers because you're not building personal relationships by carpet bombing them. We want to be on a personal basis with them, and sending them a press release isn't going to accomplish much for the next time you want to approach them."

Ritchie said that he sends a personal note with a "buffet of options" for the blogger -- whether it's a YouTube clip, a mainstream press article, or even an original scoop -- so that he or she can choose how to engage the story.

Christine Perkett, president and founder of PerkettPR, said that bloggers often differ from journalists in that they aren't writing about these subjects as a full-time job, meaning they will approach the story differently than would a reporter…

…One thing that PR professionals have found within social media is a tendency for badly run campaigns to backfire. If a journalist receives a bad pitch or poorly targeted press release, he'll often just ignore it. But it's not uncommon for a blogger to publish the press release or email on his blog, ridiculing the person or agency that sent it to him.

While campaigns should adopt similar strategies and precautions, it is important to remember that the blogosphere is still in its early years, and changes are still to come in the realm of citizen journalism. As another article from MediaShift points out “[There has been a] trend in recent years of newspapers trying to team up with local bloggers.”


Los Angeles Times blog editor Tony Pierce says:

"For the most part, this whole citizen journalism concept is fine for about three or four people per town, but that's about it," he said. "And most of those people are not journalists for a reason. Either they're crappy writers or they're crazy, which makes for sometimes interesting blog posts, but is that something that a major newspaper would link to?

… I love blogs more than any other person -- but I'll be the first to tell you that most of them are crappy. Which isn't to say that individual posts can't be great, and I think that's where newspapers should focus."

Such a system of online newspaper sources linking to local-oriented blog posts is tricky - it’s uncharted waters for campaigns to navigate effectively. But some clues as to how to develop a clever strategy can be seen in the way campaigning is done now.

According to political scientist Brian Schaffner, “One reason that citizens turn to the local news more often [than national news] is that they tend to be interested in news that directly affects their lives.” Referring to a 2002 Pew study that found local television news to still be the most popular form of media consumption (and a 2008 Pew study finds it continues to be) Schaffner argues that campaigns are smart to target local communities in speeches and message because it gets more airtime on local news than national news and is more relevant to voters.

“Campaign events often have significance to local communities that would be lost on national news outlets. For example, during the second debate of the 2000 presidential campaign, George Bush and Al Gore briefly discussed the tragic school shootings that occurred in 1999 at Columbine High School in Colorado. This discussion was almost completely ignored by the national news programs, but each television station…in Denver discussed that portion of the debate on their news programs…the news was much more important for citizens in Denver who were still dealing with the repercussions of the tragedy.”

As blogs become more and more focused on local issues with the help of the professional news industry, campaigns can use the same tactics of message on local issues and win coverage.

Beyond this, campaigns are already reaching out to bloggers in personalized ways to get positive coverage and a leg up in the online news age - another one of the lasting legacies of Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign. And more innovations for 21st Century PR are sure to come as campaigns evolve and Americans leave the ink print behind.


Come back Tuesday for Part 7: 21st Century Polling!

Case Study: Twitter's Impact on WAYLA

In 2009, What Are You Looking At? experienced a dramatic increase in readership between the months of May and June. Overall, traffic on WAYLA doubled in June relative to the traffic in May.


How did this increase happen?

There are several variables that went into the growth of visits to WAYLA - including more content to find with a Google search and a greater presence in social bookmarking - but one of the most noticeable reasons for this improvement was Twitter.

In fact, we found that there was at least a 20% increase in traffic that was directly attributable to Twitter. As our base of followers grew steadily at www.Twitter.com/HSGWAYLABlog, our referrals from Twitter to the blog grew exponentially.


Why Twitter Can Help a Blog

Today WAYLA has about 350 followers on Twitter - a number that is increasing on a daily basis. By tweeting approximately three times a day we have kept the blog relevant to those followers. They can now be consistently reminded to check out the newest blog post.

By including a few words on the content of our new posts, “What We’re Looking At” or headlines we have provided for the day, we can not only catch the eye of our followers, but spark enough of an interest to bring them back to the blog and read it. Not only is it helpful for us because it increases our traffic, but it gives our readers the opportunity to know what’s new at WAYLA and remind them to visit again.

According to Shannon Vallor - a professor at Santa Clara University who studies social networking - “the first place people go are these social-networking tools [such as Twitter] rather than the conventional media…more people are using the major media outlets as places to go after they've heard the basic story to get more information.”

Twitter can also be accessed easily with modern cell phones. This has a serious advantage for bloggers who analyze the news. One study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project finds that Twitter users are more than twice as likely to read the news on their mobiles as other internet users. Additionally, checking the news via phones is becoming increasingly common with smart phones as professionals become more and more “on-the-go.”


Using Twitter for increasing hits and the number of visitors a blog receives has other very practical reasoning behind it. Research shows that over 90% of the users of social networking websites (including Myspace, Facebook, and now Twitter) also read blogs.


WAYLA’s New Media Strategy

WAYLA has maintained a page at Facebook since February. While this provided some initial growth in traffic, continuing to increase hits was somewhat difficult. The reason is simple enough: WAYLA’s niche reader is not in his or her twenties - the prime age of a Facebook user.

According to the Pew study mentioned before, the median age for a Facebook user is 26 - not long out of college and not as likely to be involved professionally in political campaign strategy. The median age for Twitter users, however, is 31 - an age at which a person is much more likely to be interested in the sort of content we typically publish.


So in late May and throughout June, WALYA did a big Twitter push. We sent out an email blast, Facebook update, and even did a blog post letting our readers know that we were on Twitter. Our contacts that were not even very familiar with the blog started visiting on a regular basis once they were following us.

It wasn’t long before less familiar contacts - and even many people we didn’t know - were following us as well, deepening our pool of potential readers.


Can Twitter Help Your Business or Campaign?

Twitter is free and simple to use, so there’s no point in neglecting it. But in order for it to be helpful it must be used wisely. Much of it has to do with what we like to call “Twitter talent.”

A recent study by BlissPR - a public relations firm in New York - found that a majority of consulting firms are failing to use social networking. Those which do have Twitter accounts or Facebook pages either use new media too limitedly or fail to use it effectively - for example, they might post tweets that don’t pass what communications expert Ann Wylie calls the “who cares” test. Simply put: you need to provide your followers with useful information when you tweet.

Blogs can use it to drive traffic, campaigns can use it to update supporters about fundraisers or volunteer opportunities, and (as the Boston Globe found recently) restaurants can use it for posting their daily specials. All of these uses are effective because they provide followers with information they can use.

And because it simultaneously advances your purposes, tweeting effectively is to both their benefit and yours.

Will the State Senate Change Hands in the Centennial State?

Today WAYLA reports on local politics from Colorado.

Back in May, we found that Colorado Democrats - who control both houses in the State Legislature - were undergoing a bit of a rough patch in public opinion. Not much has changed in that time (in fact, it’s only gotten worse for many Democratic leaders there) so we decided to take a look at what exactly it could mean for Colorado’s government after 2010.

Rather than look at statewide offices, we started with the upper house in the Colorado General Assembly, where Democrats control 21 of the 35 seats. In order to take back the State Senate, the GOP would only need to grab 4 districts.

Can they do it?

Seventeen seats in the State Senate will be contested in 2010 - eight of them currently held by Democrats. Of those eight, five will be vacated due to term limits. Obviously, open seats have the most competitive races - so let’s start there.

Of the open seats, three of them (Districts 3, 32, and 34) are pretty safe for Democrats to hang on to. Districts 32 and 34 are both in solid-blue areas of Denver, and District 3 encompasses the town of Pueblo, where Democrats outnumber Republicans two-to-one.

The other two open seats, however, will be competitive.

In District 6 (Durango, Montrose) term-limited incumbent Jim Isgar (D-Durango) recently announced resignation upon an appointment to the Obama Administration. Isgar’s seat will be filled by a Democrat until the 2010 election. While Isgar had managed some impressive victories in 2002 and 2006, John McCain won the district with about 51% of the vote last year, and Republicans outnumber Democrats about 40% - 26%. Local Democrats hope that Isgar’s replacement will have enough time to build a name for himself before Election time.


In District 20 (Wheat Ridge, Golden) Democrats and Republicans are about even in registration numbers, and State Sen. Maryanne Moe Keller (D-Wheat Ridge) won this suburban-Denver district by less than half of a percent in 2002. While she did better in 2006 (with about 57%) it’s important to remember she was assisted by the incumbency effect and the fact that 2006 was just a good year for Democrats.

But that’s only 2 seats for the GOP - half of what they need to regain control. They will need to look at knocking-off some incumbents as well.

One place to start is with State Sen. John Morse (D-Colorado Springs) in District 11. It’s a relatively competitive seat, and the disapproval of state Democratic leaders could trickle down into this race.

The other vulnerable seat is the large 5th District, where incumbent State Sen. Gail Schwartz won with just under 51% in 2006 - less than a thousand votes. But Republican and Democratic numbers there are fairly even and President Obama won the district with 53.6% of the vote. This is likely to be a very competitive re-election campaign - especially with the poor ratings Coloradans have been giving Democrats lately.

The only other imaginable target would be State Sen. Lois Trochtop (D-Thornton) in the northern Denver suburbs - but after she earned 60% of the vote in 2006, it would be quite the Cinderella story.

Most other seats - including virtually all GOP-controlled districts - are fairly safe for 2010. The State Senate races to watch will be the five races listed above. Republicans - who also aren’t very popular in Colorado these days - will have to really perform well this election cycle in order to win 4 out of those 5 competitive races (one of which is hardly competitive at all).

While it’s too close to call at the moment, it certainly would not be impossible for the GOP to retake the Colorado State Senate - but it will still be difficult.


For more information on Democratic and Republican performance in Colorado, see www.COMaps.org/cosenate.html and http://www.elections.colorado.gov/WWW/default/2008_Abstract.pdf

What’s Still to Come in the Evolution of Political TV Ads?

Part 5 of our 10-part series: “21st Century Campaigning”

The presidential race in 2008 saw some of the most effective campaign ads ever seen on television. They incorporated most of the important developments in political advertising of the past 50 years - and even went a step or two further.


The Evolution of Political TV Ads

1952 - The Birth of Campaign TV Spots

In Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first ad - “Ike for President” - the WWII General’s campaign began the new tactic of television spots for a political campaign.




1964 - Hitting the Heart

Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, television ads were mostly fairly boring and certainly not too controversial. Then President Lyndon Johnson’s campaign produced “Daisy” - the Pandora’s Box of (truly) negative ads. It was so controversial that it only played once, but the impact it had on campaign ads to follow has never gone away.




1968 - The Daisy Effect Lives On

Former Vice President Nixon spots this similar - thought certainly not as vivid - negative ad, attacking the Democrats for their handling of the Vietnam War.




1976 - Targeting by Media Market

In his first Presidential campaign, Jimmy Carter produced a region-specific ad to drive votes in the American South. This attention to particular audiences in particular media markets served as a precursor to the later micro-targeting techniques of Karl Rove and others.




1980 - Making Ads “Issue-Based”

Believe it or not, political ads are more substantive than they’ve ever been before. In fact, only about two-thirds of campaign ads in the 1950s were issue-based rather than “image-based” - compared to about 85% issue-based and 15% image-based by 2004.

Here, in Ronald Reagan’s 1980 “Podium” ad, we see the development of flashy, short and simple campaign ads that still stay issue-based.




1984 - Making Ads Memorable

The most effective campaign TV spots are those that voters can’t help but remember. In this re-election ad, “Prouder, Stronger, Better” (better known as the “Morning in America” ad) Reagan’s campaign produced a masterpiece.

It has all the great images - patriotic symbols, young children, senior citizens, workers, dogs, even a wedding - all of which (some for still uncertain reasons) are brilliant and highly effective for campaign ads. All the while it maintains an issue-based message of economic improvement.




1988 - Divide and Conquer

In George H.W. Bush’s first campaign, Lee Atwater became the first political consultant to be a household name. Although the Bush campaign itself didn’t run it, Atwater was the man behind the infamous “Willy Horton” ad, as well as the equally well-known “Revolving Door” spot.

The tactics were innovative for two reasons. First, they were more negative than ever before. While that should have hurt the Bush campaign (which it did to an extent) it made the campaign’s message look more factual than the rosy pictures presented by Reagan and Carter in the ads above. Second, they used the divisive issue of crime in a way that they could bring in more mainstream Americans than they risked to lose. Never before had the “50% + 1” strategy been so evident.




1992 - Campaigns Decide to “Prove It”

Bill Clinton’s campaign might not have invented this idea, but they used it extremely well: citing your sources. They made it commonplace to back-up claims with quotes (or at least a source and date) from respected newspapers.




1996 - The Contrast Ad

It had been seen before, but again, not to this extent. In his re-election campaign, President Clinton continually framed his arguments in a way that compared himself to his opponent - all the while sounding fair and fact-driven - and casting his opponent as untrustworthy by making his image grainy as well as black and white.

Beyond the images and citations, they typically stayed specific to one issue at a time and could easily be targeted towards specific demographics (in the case below, mothers and young voters).




2008 - Putting it All Together

It’s not difficult to see for yourself how these developments influenced campaign ads in the 2008 election.






Adapting to Change

Campaigns have traditionally spent time, money, and effort producing political ads as a way to introduce a candidate’s message to otherwise uninterested voters - those who don’t pay much attention to the news or the political community. It serves a powerful purpose to bring that message into the home, connecting with these voters in an intimate and personal way.

But like most tactics, the technological developments of the 21st Century are forcing campaigns to rethink how and why they do political TV ads. One problem is what New York Times writer Stuart Elliot calls “The TiVo Challenge.”

From an article he wrote last year:

"Most of the people who are watching ads online are political junkies who've already made up their minds," says Tobe Berkowitz, a communications professor at Boston University. "The reason the candidates still buy a lot of TV ads is that it reaches people who don't pay a lot of attention to the campaign."

But that doesn't mean the Internet and other new technologies aren't changing the rules of the game. One challenge for the 2008 campaigns is how to deal with technology like TiVo that allows viewers to skip the commercials.

"Private-sector companies can do product-placement; candidates can't do that," says Dan Schnur, a professor of political science and communications at the University of Southern California. "You're not going to see Barack Obama fighting terrorists with Jack Bauer. You're not going to see John McCain on So You Think You Can Dance."

These challenges may signal the end of TV's long dominance in campaign advertising. "I think this might be the last big presidential cycle where you see these huge amounts of money spent on television," Berkowitz says. "In another four years, who knows what it will be."

According to some, not only is the dominance of TV ads at risk in campaign politics, but their entire existence is as well.

As Chuck Todd wrote of the “lessons learned” in the 2008 campaign:

“TV ads are overrated: had it not been for the sheer saturation of the television airwaves Obama’s financial advantage allowed him, 2008 might have been known as the year the 30 second TV ad died. It’s becoming more and more difficult for political TV ads to be ‘sticky,’ so good as to be remembered by voters for a period of time…Campaigns need to diversify their attempts at branding beyond the 30 second spot unless they truly have unlimited resources, like Obama.”

If you’re a political junkie, however, don’t worry - we don’t think the 30 second political ad is going to be extinct any time soon. The reason is simple: supporters would think it disastrous to their candidate’s chances of winning.

Throughout this series, we’ve mentioned how little beats voter-to-voter contact in spreading a campaign’s message and winning support. That means candidates have to rely on volunteers to make phone calls and canvass neighborhoods, as well as hopeful donors to finance it all. And just like the disappearance of yard signs would scare a campaign’s donors and volunteers, so would the disappearance of TV spots in a national, statewide, or even congressional election.

So campaigns may need to begin a new strategy of utilizing television ads for a new purpose: encouraging their supporters.


What’s to Come in Political TV Advertising

One prediction is that more campaign ads will be produced, but perhaps seen less on television. With the online age, more and more ads will be emailed, blogged, and seen on YouTube than TV. It will be a more cost effective way to communicate with supporters that expect to see an operational campaign producing ads.

Additionally, ads will become higher-quality and more rapidly produced. Their relevance will be short lived, created for the purpose of encouraging supporters who are living in the day-to-day news of the race.

Take these two ads that addressed concerns from the final debate in the 2008 presidential election - namely, the connection between Sen. John McCain and President George W. Bush. If you remember, McCain landed a memorable line: “Sen. Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.” McCain’s ad also addressed the “spreading the wealth around” quote which he raised in the debate when discussing Joe the Plumber.





As we said in a post the day these ads were released (the day immediately following the debate), “You know that technology is pretty incredible when you can watch a debate that ends at 9:30 PM and see brand-new post-debate presidential campaign ads by 9:30 AM the next day.” Clearly, there is a real purpose behind that strategy.

Finally, we saw in 2008 a possible preview of a dramatic innovation of campaign ads in years to come. In late October, just before GOTV operations began, the Obama campaign released a thirty-minute ad known as the Obama Infomercial. It cost them $3 million to air it on seven major networks, all at 8:00 PM.



As many noted at the time, apathetic voters could easily change the channel - making the efficacy of the ad questionable. Even Jim Margolis, Mr. Obama’s senior advertising strategist, said “Many people have 150 channels; they’ve got plenty of other choices.”

But the infomercial probably wasn’t for the average voter as much as it was for the supporter. Obama had an army of donors and volunteers - millions of them - who all tuned-in to watch the much-talked-about infomercial and become extra-motivated before signing up to knock on doors and make calls for Get-Out-the-Vote weekend.

And if the public financing of elections dissipates - as we suspect it will - and you can raise upwards of $1 billion, then why not put $3 million into an infomercial to boost your volunteer program and increase voter outreach?

So, in presidential elections at least, expect campaigns to target supporters more and more with their TV ads; expect these ads to be more and more congruent with the life of the campaign; and expect political TV advertising to continue - and to evolve even more.


Coming Friday: campaign PR in the 21st Century.

A Wealthy Governor Short on Campaign Cash

Today WAYLA reports on local politics from New Jersey

Governor Jon Corzine (D-NJ) has not been short of woes in his tough re-election battle this year, but the one area where he always had the leg-up on GOP opponent Chris Christie in campaign money.

According to a New York Times article last week, however, Corzine is now struggling on that front as well.

[A]fter a costly divorce and a steep decline in his net worth [since the Wall Street collapse last year], Mr. Corzine, the onetime chief executive of Goldman Sachs, is in the unfamiliar position of seeking donations to help foot the bill for his campaign…

…Mr. Corzine is trying to raise upward of $15 million from donors, according to people involved, which he hopes to match with no more than $25 million of his own.

He is calling wealthy donors personally to ask for money, holding receptions and staging larger events, like a performance by Jon Bon Jovi last month.

On Thursday, President Obama joined him at a $5,000- to $10,000-a-plate luncheon expected to raise more than $1 million.

But Obama and Bon Jovi aren’t making the new fundraising experience much easier for Corzine. According to campaign aids, convincing Democrats to foot the bill for a governor that’s well known for his money has been difficult.

Several people trying to raise money for Mr. Corzine described resistance from prospective contributors who asked why the governor did not just reach into his wallet again.

“We always talk about it and joke about it, how it’s like selling sand to the Saudis…people say, ‘I’m having trouble paying my bills; what does he need my money for?’”

Of course, a campaign’s finance operation is not an island to itself - the results of a fundraiser, for instance, can often have a great impact on the political nature of a campaign’s efforts.

Take, for example, the Bon Jovi fundraising concert…

Mr. Corzine drew screaming rock ’n’ roll fans from as far as Hartford to a fundraiser in Newark headlined by Mr. Bon Jovi.

Some had come for the music, not the politics. Among them was Judy Grabler, a homemaker from Edison, N.J., who called Mr. Corzine “out of touch” and said she opposed much of what he had done as governor.

Sitting in a $300 seat, Ms. Grabler said she was appalled when the singer disappeared after only three numbers. “I kept thinking he would be back after the speeches,” she said of Mr. Bon Jovi. But he did not return.

Nor did hundreds of Corzine donors who had filed out just before the governor took the stage.

Frankly, that is not the sort of image a campaign wants to present to voters.

None of this is unfamiliar to campaign professionals who have seen wealthier candidates try to raise money rather than self-fund their campaigns. Nor is the current slump surprising to those who work in political fundraising. We mentioned back in February that the current recession doesn’t appear to be leaving campaign politics as a safe industry.

Luckily for Corzine, Christie isn’t doing much better on the fundraising side of things. The Republican depends on the state’s public finance system to provide matching funds, but that limits his campaign spending to $11 million this cycle. Corzine could easily spend all of the $40 million he hopes to raise from private donors and put in himself.

But that’s still short of the combined $100 million he’s put into his races in the past when he was more popular. Now, trailing in the polls by as much as 10 points, a four-to-one cash advantage might not be enough.

We’ll have to wait and see.

Obama Addresses the NAACP

President Barack Obama - the nation's first African-American Commander-in-Chief - gave a terrific speech last night to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People at their 100th Anniversary convention.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Will the GOP Continue to Lose Hispanic Votes?

Following Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court back in May, we commented that the GOP would be unlikely to filibuster her confirmation because of a fear of losing Hispanic votes.

Of course, with Sen. Al Franken being sworn in earlier this month, it is extremely unlikely that Senate Republicans could pull off a filibuster anyway. But even if they wanted to, as blogger Glenn Thrush said, “every GOP leader with a pulse knows that opposing her could accelerate the stampede of Latinos out of the GOP in the southwest, west and Texas.”

In fact, our very first post back in October explained how winning Latino support was putting then-Senator Barack Obama over the top in states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. The GOP has tried to be cautious of the growing significance of Hispanic votes.

Apparently, that fact is of no concern to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Ranking Minority Member, Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Since the confirmation hearings began earlier this week, Sessions has been in (what appears to be) full campaign mode against her.

Just watch his message consistency as he questioned her on Tuesday:



Sessions knows full well that nothing can derail a Senate Judiciary confirmation like charges of racism. When President Ronald Reagan nominated him to be a District Court judge back in 1986, the GOP-controlled Judiciary Committee rejected him upon the following stories:

Senate Democrats tracked down a career Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, who testified, albeit reluctantly, that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)… "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Hebert said Sessions had claimed [the NAACP] "forced civil rights down the throats of people."

…Hebert testified that the young lawyer tended to "pop off" on such topics regularly, noting that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases…

…Another damaging witness--a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures--testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers."…Sessions, he said, had called him "boy" and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks."

So, when you want to court Latino voters - as President George W. Bush did fairly well in his two national elections - letting a man like Sessions be the chief opponent of a Sotomayor confirmation seems like a particularly dumb move on the part of the GOP.

Why is Latino support so critical?

Hispanics are the second largest ethnic group in the United States, and they’re continuing to grow. As NBC’s Chuck Todd and Sheldon Gawiser pointed out in their book Why Obama Won:

"Young voters are more diverse racially and ethnically than older voters and are growing more over time. Just 62% of voters under 30 are white, while 18% are black and 14% are Hispanic…in 2000, nearly three-quarters, 74%, were white."

And as we all know, young voters were particularly supportive of Obama. The correlation is that as younger voters grow older - and more and more young people reach the voting age - Hispanics will become a more and more prominent voting bloc.

What makes Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination so important is that there are still few Latinos holding high offices in the U.S. government. Hispanics represent about 15% of the American population, but only about 6% of the House of Representatives and 2% of the Senate. Furthermore, in 2008, only 7.7% of federal employees in the civil service were Hispanic, with only about 3% holding senior roles.

This might be an important reason as to why Hispanics made up only 7.4% of the total vote in 2008 - they seldom have one of their own to support.

While there are many non-partisan groups for the advancement of Hispanics in public life out there - such as the National Association of Latinos in Elected Office, The Leauge of United Latin American Citizens, and La Raza - the most successful groups of these sorts would be partisan.

The reason is simple: those involved with the parties themselves are often more experienced and would have a greater incentive to build support by recruiting Latinos for public office (namely, building a base to win elections for their party).

And between their nativist stance on immigration and now Session’s stark opposition to confirming Judge Sotomayor, the GOP is becoming less and less likely to be the party to achieve this goal. Thus - despite their efforts to the contrary - it seems evident that the Republicans will continue to lose out on the growing Hispanic vote.

Campaigns Heat Up On and Off Capitol Hill

It’s Thursday, July 16, 2009. Here’s what we’re looking at:

Another interest groups runs a positive ad for an entrenched member of Congress. This time Health Care for America is asking constituents to thank Senators Chris Dodd and Harry Reid.



Meanwhile, interest group fights interest group (in fact, company fights company) in a tough public affairs campaign on the Hill. FedEx is attacking UPS for trying to get a federal bailout.



In fact, UPS isn’t trying to get a bailout at all – they’re supporting a bill that would (among other things) pave the way for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to organize with FedEx like they already do with UPS. As we said on Wednesday last week, there’s no “truth in advertising” law in politics.

Nonetheless, several conservative interest groups – including Americans for Tax Reform, Frontiers for Freedom, and Citizen Outreach – are asking FedEx to stop because the campaign is undermining their own anti-bailout efforts.

You may have seen in recent weeks that SarahPAC – Sarah Palin’s political action committee – is ramping up their fundraising efforts. Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com looks through their recent FEC reports and finds something interesting – the amount of money their raising isn’t significant, but the percent of small donations is much higher than most campaigns.


In Pennsylvania, at-risk incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) is taking a swing at his new primary opponent, Rep. Joe Sestak. From the Specter campaign:

Joe Sestak – AWOL

Dear Friend,

Q. In the 19-member Pennsylvania Congressional Delegation, who’s missed the most votes this year?
A. Congressman Joe Sestak. Sestak has missed 78 votes in Congress so far this year, or nearly 15%, while campaigning for his theoretical Senate run.

Q. Who has the 13th worst attendance record this year in the entire Congress?
A. Joe Sestak. That’s right. Only twelve other Members of Congress have missed more votes than Sestak in 2009, including two members who are in rehab, one recovering from back surgery and several under government investigation.

Q. Is it true that 97% of all members of Congress have a better attendance record than Congressman Sestak.
A. Yes. Sestak ranks that low -- 97% of all members of Congress have a better attendance record than Congressman Sestak.

Q. What’s Senator Specter’s attendance?
A. Specter has been present for 98.7% of all votes in the Senate this year.

As we mentioned before, Specter is likely to face a tough primary – and that’s despite the fact that he went so far as to switch parties in order to avoid one!

Finally, Democrats picked up a seat in California this week, as Democrat Judy Chu won a special election against Republican Beatty Chu in Los Angeles to replace Obama’s Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, in the House of Representatives.

Evidently, voters didn’t feel there were too many Chus to choose from.

How Political Fundraising Has and Will Continue to Change

Part 4 of our 10-part series: “21st Century Campaigning”

The internet has changed much of the way we work, retrieve information, and live our daily lives. In politics, the internet has changed the game in ways of transparency, public forum, and campaign outreach. In time, it may even be where we go to vote.

So far, however, the internet has had its greatest impact on one aspect of political campaigns in particular: fundraising.

Around the year 2000, candidates began maintaining websites regularly. By 2002, it was estimated that over half of Americans had internet access in their homes. And in 2004, the internet made its first big dent in American politics - it turned an unknown former governor from the tiny state of Vermont into a household name and political giant.

Howard Dean revolutionized the way campaigns were done - for both Democrats and Republicans - with his bid in the 2004 presidential race. In about a year he built a national network of activists and, with them, raised an astounding amount of money (tens of millions of dollars) from thousands of modest contributions.

Today the most important page of a campaign website is the “Contribution” section. The reason is simple: the average voter doesn’t go to a candidate’s website to make their decision (although many pundits and analysts suggest that’s beginning to change) but the average donor will contribute online.


And the typical campaign website won’t open with a candidate introduction or positions on the issues - it opens with a screen inviting the reader to sign up for email updates. Those email updates will occasionally be used to inform voters of upcoming events or the candidate’s positions, but the vast majority of the time they will be soliciting contributions - a move right out of the Dean playbook.


It also allows for campaigns to re-solicit from prior contributors - (usually) the most likely group of people to give again. In December we noted that even the Obama transition team used the campaign email list to get donations for the Inaugural celebrations.

Obama actually took the progress Dean had made one step further - he raised so much from small donations that he didn’t need to rely on lobbyists, PACs, or public financing. Sen. McCain’s presidential campaign account received only 54% of it cash from individual donors, compared to a whopping 88% of Obama’s campaign finances. And with online fundraising, they raised amounts that were previously unimaginable - more than $1 billion between them.

The result: public financing of presidential elections is bound to fade away. It may have even seen its last days in 2008, barring any new reform from Congress.

Many think it is unfortunate that public financing may (for all practical purposes) go extinct, but only time can tell. In January, Sherwin Hughes made quite an analogy between Obama’s fundraising mastery and a poker game:

“I liken right-wing conservative donors to gamblers. These poker players, drunk on their own hubris and wealth, are sitting down to a game of presidential stud, hold 'em or betting on horses at the track. The max buy-in is a cool $2,300…

…Those hands would ultimately be trumped. Millions of ordinary people sat down at that high stakes presidential poker game. The same people who haven't been invited to play for the last 8 years, and arguably the last 200, seated themselves with confidence at this exclusive backroom game. They pooled their $5 and $10 chips, raised, re-raised and splashed the pot. The cards were dealt face up and revealed a beautiful royal flush which consisted of the face cards of disenfranchised Americans, war veterans, and jobless individuals.”

Again, another implication of the internet in politics is the greater extent of transparency. Not only are campaign finance reports readily available at the Federal Election Commission’s online database, but OpenSecrets.org and similar websites as well.

Candidates may be less likely to raise money from special interests with these resources available to voters. Obama himself refused to accept contributions from lobbyists, and has pushed the Democratic Party to adapt the same principle.

Nobody likes how expensive campaigns are becoming, but it all comes down to the internet - it’s fundamentally changed the way political campaigns raise money. In the end, it might even make campaign finance better.

Sotomayor Hearings Start Off Partisan

Today’s opening to the confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor hit a hard partisan tone this morning. One only needs to hear the remarks of Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Minority Member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to understand.



Read Leahy’s full remarks here.



Read Sessions’ full remarks here.

In fact, the GOP members of the Judiciary Committee have all hit Sotomayor hard on the “empathy” issue so far today. A party-split vote in the committee is very likely at this point.

To see the full hearings, visit the Judiciary Committee’s website for a live webcast.

Small vs. Large Campaigns in Today’s Elections

Part 3 of our 10-part series: “21st Century Campaigning”

It doesn’t take a political scientist to know that there are big differences between larger and smaller races. From the bigger turnout to saturated ad markets, large statewide and national campaigns completely overshadow local ones.

But despite the lack of attention from the voters and media, there are some real pluses to running a smaller campaign.

For one thing, a candidate in a small race can literally talk to every single voter before the election - sometimes more than once! Nothing is as effective as a face-to-face connection between a voter and a candidate. Larger campaigns cannot do that because it just isn’t practical - there are too many people! So they turn to TV and radio ads, direct mail, and robo-calls out of necessity.

It all began when progressive reforms to dismantle political machines took effect in the 20th Century. As it happened, campaigns began to shift from being party-centered to candidate-centered. The result was that the traditional mass volunteer base that the parties relied on diminished, leaving candidate-centered campaigns with less man-power.

So began what Professor J. Cherie Strachan refers to as the “professionalization” of elections: larger campaigns began to rely more and more on modern forms of communication (radio, television, and later internet) and other sophisticated marketing tactics. Meanwhile, smaller campaigns could continue the traditional way of campaigning because they never required a lot of man-power in the first place.

Except that this appears to be changing. More and more often, smaller campaigns are beginning to employ the same sophisticated tactics as the larger ones - targeted direct mail, radio ads, polls, and even TV spots. A survey Strachan conducted of mayoral candidates nationally found that 88% used one or more of these tactics for their campaigns.

Why are they doing this when they can just meet the voters personally?

In her book, High-Tech Grass Roots, Strachan says

“One of the best predictors of whether an innovation will be adopted is the perceived relative advantage it provides over the idea it supersedes…In this case, local government candidates would consider using sophisticated tactics when lower initial cost and the improved ability to target desired voters enhanced their perceptions of the relative advantage that such tactics could provide.”

It’s not just a perceived advantage - it’s real. Knocking on doors is time-consuming for a candidate. When you can narrow down voters by their likeliness to vote (and more importantly, their likeliness to vote for you) with a voter file, you can save a considerable amount of time meeting them.

Then, rather than going back to their house 3 or 4 times throughout the campaign, you can send them a mail piece addressing their specific political concerns and maybe meet them in person only twice.

And when you’re able to raise the money, a poll can go a long way towards solidifying your message and overcoming your opponent. TV or radio ads, if you can afford them, can help foster an image of your legitimacy as a politician.

And looking like the guys on the national stage is becoming easier (and in many cases, cheaper) than ever. Campaign websites are easy for interested voters to access while email and social networking services like Facebook and Twitter can keep your supporters up-to-date on fundraisers, field events, and more.

So long as these “professional” tactics are supplemented with the most effective campaign tactic - meeting voters in person - small race candidates should be encouraged to use them.

Ultimately, the methods pursued will come down to cost-benefit analysis (“how much money can I raise?” “what can I get with that money?” “how many votes would doing those things actually get me?”) and no two campaigns are exactly the same. However, smaller campaigns across the country are all beginning to look more and more like the bigger ones in terms of strategy and tactics - and in order to run for a smaller seat it’s becoming a greater necessity too.


Come back Tuesday for Part 4: Fundraising!

Did a Chaotic Fundraiser Help a Congressional Candidate?

Last week we did a post on a fundraiser-gone-wrong for Congressional candidate Francine Busby in which donors got pepper-sprayed by the cops and the host was arrested on suspicion of battery on a peace officer.

At the end of the post, we said “we can’t even imagine the headache this story will cause the Busby campaign staff.”

Well, maybe not.

According to a new article in Politico today, “the buzz surrounding the episode has suddenly breathed life into her campaign.”

She had already run unsuccessfully three times for the San Diego-area seat held by Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), and national Democratic strategists didn’t expect this time would be any different…

…Now, for better or for worse, Busby is suddenly in the limelight again. Progressives have seized on the incident as an example of law enforcement gone wild, and Busby herself has used it to draw attention to her campaign.

The controversy surrounding the bizarre incident has sparked a liberal uproar. Keith Olbermann named the arresting officer the “Worst Person in the World” one night, and the ACLU said the episode “speaks to a serious lack of law enforcement restraint.”


LGBT activists have been one of the most supportive base groups following the incident - the host herself is a lesbian and the man who called the police on the group of donors appears to be fairly homophobic.

“What it has done is given me a lot more attention and press and media than we ever would have expected at this point in time,” Busby said in an interview with POLITICO. “I’ve met thousands of people as a result of this process. There’s a lot of personal feelings about this.”

Of course, the national spotlight won’t put her on top with the voters - and that’s what elections are all about. The purpose of a campaign is to win and there are no silver medals in American politics.

In fact, that’s what scares quite a few Democrats in southern California.

Some California Democratic operatives who believe Bilbray’s seat is highly winnable worry that Busby isn’t a Democrat who can win in the Republican-leaning 50th District — and that the image of a liberal Democrat taking on area law enforcement isn’t one that will pay political dividends for the party…

…Few would argue that the seat is out of reach for Democrats. Although George W. Bush twice carried the district comfortably, Barack Obama carried it with 51 percent of the vote in 2008 — and local Democratic voter registration rolls have surged in recent years…

…[Her primary opponent, attorney Tracey Emblem, says] “She has run before, and the voters rejected her. You’ve got to stay focused on the issues. Voters don’t want to hear about ruckuses.”

But even if she’s not directly getting votes out of this incident, it’s helping her with another important campaign necessity - money.

Aside from the media attention, Busby has found that the incident is proving to be a boon to her fundraising efforts.

Not long after [the disastrous fundraiser], she blasted an e-mail to her supporters, telling Democratic donors that her campaign “is drawing serious right-wing fire.” She portrayed the police action as a serious civil rights violation and said she was going to “fight for the truth, fight to defend our civil rights, fight to defend free speech and democracy.”

“It’s the eleventh hour to show that you have the courage and commitment to stand with me against the strong forces that are gathering against us,” Busby wrote. “I am going to fight even harder to stop this hateful intimidation. I hope that I can count on you to fight this battle with me.”

Busby said she expects to raise nearly $200,000 in the second quarter — much of it since the controversy erupted — giving her a strong head start in the Democratic primary.

Finding support all over the country will bring her the financial resources necessary to mount a successful campaign. That’s how this fiasco will help.

Yet it won’t put her over the top. Busby is still going to need to do everything necessary of her to achieve what matters most - winning.

Congressman Boehner and a Bloodhound Search for Jobs

House Minority Leader John Boehner has recently released a strange video on YouTube for his Congressional website. In it he and his dog go on a search for jobs created under the stimulus bill.



Remember the Sedition Act of 1798 from the history textbooks? It made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government or its officials. Ever since it was repealed following the election of Thomas Jefferson, Americans have been cautious to reinstate such an affront to the First Amendment.

While that's good for protecting our civil liberties, the downside of it is there is no “truth in advertising” law for politics, and a politician can literally say whatever he or she wants to attack a policy or opponent. With most modern political advertising, claims will be backed up with cited source material (newspaper articles, government reports, etc.) - something Boehner and Ellie Mae failed to do.

The most glaring point in the ad where there was no citation was the claim that AIG was a big recipient of stimulus money. There was no citation because it simply wasn’t true - AIG did not receive money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, they received money from a Federal Reserve move and the Bush-backed Trouble Asset Relief Program (both of which happened last year, before Obama was even President).

John Boehner knows this.

Next he talks about a stimulus project in Wisconsin that created “no jobs” at Rusty’s Backwater Saloon. Well, of course there was a job for the guys that built the bridge, but citations aren’t required, so why throw that information out there? Then he mentions North Carolina, where evidently the only job created was one for wasting your money.

In fact, Wisconsin is receiving more than $3.5 billion to save or create 70,000 over the next two years according to current estimates. North Carolina is receiving more than $5.6 billion to save or create 105,000 jobs, and Boehner’s home state of Ohio is getting $7.5 billion to save or create 133,000 jobs.

And according to a GAO report from April, when it was written North Carolina had already put 53 infrastructure projects in motion. Ohio had begun to award contracts for another 149. Can Boehner honestly say there will be no jobs there?

The bulk of the GAO report, however, explains the critical (and lengthy) process of ensuring accountability on the part of contractors, states, and organizations receiving stimulus money. That’s why more jobs haven’t been created via the stimulus since it was passed. It’s always been made clear that the stimulus would take a while, and certainly longer than just five months.

Again, Boehner knows this - he’s just playing politics.

The lesson here is what to look out for when you see a political ad. Does the ad make significant claims about another politician or a policy? If so, make sure those claims are cited. If not, there’s not much reason to assume it isn’t false advertising.

Campaign Updates (7/8/09)

Minnesota

The Franken-Coleman race is finally over and Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) was sworn in yesterday. Below is the oath he took.




Illinois

News today is that Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D-IL) will not be running for Senate against Richard Burris (or for governor against Pat Quinn) who has bad Blagojevich ties that could hurt him in 2010.

Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post makes some predictions as to who will seek the seat now:

"With Madigan out of the Senate race, expect businessman Chris Kennedy to quickly announce his candidacy, joining state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias in the Democratic primary. Madigan's no-go decision also makes it far more likely that Rep. Mark Kirk, by far Republicans strongest candidate, will make the race."

Madigan’s decision is expected to be made public later today.


Florida

Conservative Republican Senate candidate Marco Rubio has simply not raised a lot of money lately. Last quarter he raised about a tenth of what moderate primary opponent Charlie Crist expects to raise.

Meanwhile, Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL) raised a good $1.2 million for his Senate bid. As he told supporters “No other non-incumbent Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate today is raising the funds necessary to grow the movement that we are building together.” Of course, he still fell far short of Crist, who believes he raised about $3 million for the quarter.


New Jersey

The predictably ugly gubernatorial race is heating up. Seriously-at-risk incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) released this ad against GOP opponent Chris Christie recently.



This comes after two fairly effective ads from the Republican Governors Association launched against Corzine last month.






New Hampshire

Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) is resigning to pursue a run for Senate to replace the retiring Judd Gregg (and, yes, Democrats are now comparing her to Palin for it).

This will be a closely watched race, no doubt, because of the prospects Democrats have of eliminating the GOP from New England, at least in Congressional races.

State Rep. Jim Splaine (D-Portsmouth) lays out a good analysis of Ayotte’s chances of winning - both the pros and cons for her candidacy.


Virginia

Big news from the Commonwealth today (and bad news for Democrats) - Republican Bob McDonnell has expanded his lead over Democrat Creigh Deeds to 49% - 43%. It appears that the post-primary hype for Deeds has slowed down.

Among independents, McDonnell leads 54% - 33%, a serious disadvantage for the Deeds campaign. Luckily the vast majority of Democrats have thrown their support for Deeds now in the general election - but the harsh and ugly three-way gubernatorial Democratic primary may have been a turn-off to independents.

Additionally, Republicans lead Democrats in all three statewide races this year.


Interest Groups Playing Nice?

It’s not everyday you see an interest group making an issue ad that’s supportive of a politician - typically they end with something along the lines of “call _____ and tell him/her to stop being such a jerk.”

But Americans United for Change is airing an unusually friendly ad for House members that supported the recent climate bill, asking voters to thank them for their decision.

Phone Banking for the Modern Political Campaign

Part 2 of our 10-part series: “21st Century Campaigning”

According to author and political strategist Joe Garecht, there are five reasons for campaigns to use phone banks: as a follow-up for the campaign’s direct mail; for identifying which voters are committed to which candidate; getting out the vote; fundraising calls; and to get out your rapid response to the opponent’s attacks.

While all of these are important reasons to have a phone bank, the most obvious reason is simple: persuasion. Although the process requires either a lot of money or a lot of volunteers, phone banking can be one of the most effective forms of persuasion because it involves direct, two-way contact between the campaign and the voter. This is especially true when it’s done by volunteers.


Of course, little beats door-to-door canvassing, but in rural areas where it’s hard to get around or urban areas which consist of inaccessible apartment buildings, calling the voters is your best option.

In fact, an emphasis on voter contact went a long way towards President Obama’s impressive victory last year. As we found when examining the exit polls last year, the Obama campaign made as much as 37% more voter contact than McCain’s team did.

Yet with the technological revolution of the past two decades, the way campaigns communicate with voters on the phone is changing.

But how?

As you probably know, with the rise of cell phones, many Americans no longer bother keeping land lines. For a while – and even today in some states – finding cell numbers for phone banks was difficult and the databases campaigns used were incomplete.

But with new voters (who are largely behind the decline of land lines) come new voter registration forms complete with cell numbers that literally – by law – can stick with a person for life if he or she so chooses. Campaigns that register voters can collect these numbers and enter them into the party’s database. Hence, this particular problem is slowly fading away.

Then there was the problem of the call itself. As Campaigns and Elections wrote in 2002, it makes sense to call a voter on their cell phone “only if you want voters angry because your campaign wasted their air time and cost them money.”

Luckily the so-called “invisible hand of the free market” has been taking care of that problem – more and more cell phone companies have stopped charging their customers for incoming calls.

What the tech-age has done to phone banking is made it easier for campaigns – sort of.

In 2006, an article posted on the website for Democratic strategists Paul and Marty Stone (who specialize in phone communications) described the way campaigns can now do phone banks:

Campaigners for Patrick Murphy were staring the May 16 Democratic primary in the teeth. In 48 hours, voters in Pennsylvania's 8th District would go to the polls. There were plenty of volunteers to make get-out-the-vote calls, but not enough phones.

It was May 14, and a Murphy staffer took a suitcase into the basement of a campaign volunteer's home in Bucks County. He unzipped the bag and pulled out a dozen telephones, plugged them into a computer, and within five minutes, the group began using the Internet to call local voters.

There were no expensive phone line deposits to pay the local telephone company. No waiting for the telephone company installer or promises he would be there between 8 a.m. and noon or 1 and 5 p.m. two weeks down the road, when it would be too late.

A handful of volunteers and staffers made 2,000 get-out-the-vote calls in two days, and Murphy won with nearly two-thirds of the vote against his Democratic challenger.

Of course, Marty Stone himself stresses that when campaigns can, they should stick to traditional land lines because internet phones and mobiles just don’t deliver the same quality. But in high-pressure situations or for rural towns that can’t get the same staff attention as the bigger cities, the internet lines and cell phones can be a great way to streamline scarce campaign resources.

And then there is the way the Obama campaign made new innovations to an old concept. Not only did they start getting volunteers in mass from states like California calling voters in states like Ohio, but they also figured out ways to get activists that otherwise couldn’t volunteer to make calls from home.

From an interesting Huffington Post article on phone banking last year:

If you're an expat like Charley James, an American living in Toronto, Canada, who wants to volunteer for a favorite candidate, a virtual phone bank is the way to go.

James contacted the Obama campaign by signing up online. When he has a few free hours after work, he logs in, receives a list of names, a script and a report form and starts calling the all-important Ohio voters. He calls undecided and likely voters and registered Democrats.

He emails his report into the campaign and from there, other data entry volunteers --- either online or at an Obama office --- merge the information into the Obama 'Mother Brain' that scrubs voter data --- updating and cleaning up their voter information database crucial for the Election Day GOTV efforts and setting the stage for the next campaign cycle.

The use of technology like mass texting and online phone banks has been key to Sen. Obama's startling wins during the primary against better-known rivals, who also employed digital-tech outreach but not as efficiently or effectively.

Of course, some campaigns will continue to avoid such innovations, and for valid reasons. As political scientists Donald Green and Alan Gerber observed in their 2004 book, Get Out the Vote!:

“In principle, you can coordinate a phone bank in a decentralized manner, with callers working from home. Although less expensive, this type of arrangement creates potentially serious supervisory problems. Even if the callers are doing their work, you cannot monitor whether they are staying “on message” and conveying the proper tone. For this reason, most campaigns prefer to have phone bank volunteers make their calls from a central location.”

Yet with campaigns being as competitive as ever, their operatives are going to continue to walk a fine line between the traditional safeties of sound quality and centralized volunteers and the 21st Century realities of fast-paced, high-pressure operations that require a block of decentralized supporters.

According to political scientist and campaigns expert Bob Roberts, future campaigns will require flexibility – making use of multiple techniques to get to voters rather than relying on the traditional standbys. "That's the dilemma all campaigns are facing now," he says.

And he’s exactly right.


Come back Friday for Part 3 of the series - Small vs. Large Campaigns.

What is Palin’s Future Now?

To everyone’s surprise - including many people closest to her - Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) announced Friday that she would soon be resigning.

Immediately - and to no one’s surprise - a firestorm of media speculation started as to why she chose to leave and what it meant for her political future.

A week ago today, our own survey of our readers found that Palin was thought to be the Number One Contender for the GOP nomination in 2012. Her Friday announcement certainly seemed to hint at a presidential campaign, but as many have noted, it may have killed any hope she had.

From an article in Politico:

[There have been] brutal reviews from many Republicans, who believe that quitting mid-term in the fashion she did amounts to political suicide.

“There is just no good way to say quitting has made her more qualified to run for higher office,” said veteran GOP pollster Glen Bolger.

What reasons did Palin have to resign?

Palin’s own explanations are anything but clear. She gave a now-famous basketball analogy of knowing when to “pass the ball” to claim it was best for Alaska.

Then in a Facebook response to her critics, she said

“The response in the main stream media has been most predictable, ironic, and as always, detached from the lives of ordinary Americans who are sick of the “politics of personal destruction”. How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it’s about country. And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make. But every American understands what it takes to make a decision because it’s right for all, including your family.”

What’s more obvious is that by resigning she can make a lot of money off the speaking circuit - enough to support her family for life while giving her enough exposure to build support for a 2012 campaign in the 48 lower states. Furthermore, she’s been giving subtle hints beyond the so-called “higher calling”.

Journalist Geoffrey Dunn (who’s currently writing a book on Palin) wrote for the Huffington Post this weekend:

One of my favorite lies spewed by Palin today in yet another poorly scripted speech was that she campaigned for governor "four years ago...," when she, in fact, ran for governor three years ago and held her position for little more than two-and-half years. It's the little lies she always tells, the twists of truth, the distortions. Four years sounds like nearly a full term; three feels incomplete. So why not just call it four?

What’s less obvious is her declining popularity in Alaska - much of it coming from Republicans.

From Dunn’s article:

She has alienated virtually all the key legislators in her own party -- that's right, Republicans -- and had failed to move any key legislation forward since her return to Alaska from the national campaign trail last November.

In fact, her bizarre appointment for Attorney General, Wayne Anthony Ross, was rejected nearly unanimously by the state legislature -- a first in Alaskan history. Even in respect to energy policy, her supposed bailiwick, she has been categorically ineffective. When I asked those in-the-know what role Palin had played in putting together the recent pipeline deal between TransCanada and Exxon, their response was simple: "None."

…The evangelical right can wallow in denial all they want about Palin being victimized by liberals or Democrats or even George Soros…the fact is that most of the people with really bad things to say about Palin -- from John McCain's staff to conservatives in Alaska -- come from the Republican Party. The charges of a left-wing conspiracy are so ridiculous as to be absolutely absurd.

So what is in store for Palin’s future?

Despite the onslaught of criticism she's receiving for her resignation, only time will tell if it was a good idea or not. It’s been suggested that some of her recent criticism has been the result of a stealth Romney attack in the midst a pre-2012 campaign press battle within the GOP. If this is true it means that some in the Republican Party think that by not running a state it will actually help her presidential ambitions in the long run, and that only early attacks can derail these prospects.

Nevertheless, the resignation announcement was poorly handled. The message she used suggested she did not have the skin to deal with negative media coverage, and that led to accusations that she’s egotistic and childish.

As Maureen Dowd wrote in a critical editorial in the New York Times this weekend:

Sarah wanted everyone to know that she’s not having fun and people are being mean to her and she doesn’t feel like finishing her first term as governor…

… After girlish burbling about how “progressing our state” and serving Alaska “is the greatest honor that I could imagine,” and raving about how much she loves her job, she abruptly announced that she was making the ultimate sacrifice: dumping the state on her lieutenant…

…Naturally, she dragged the troops in, saying that her trip to see wounded soldiers overseas “fortified” her decision to give up because “they don’t give up.”

She refuses to succumb to the “politics of personal destruction.” It’s no fun unless she’s the one aiming those poison darts, as she did when she accused Barack Obama of associating “with terrorists who targeted their own country.”

Sometimes, she explained, if you’re the star, you have to “call an audible and pass the ball” and leave at halftime, “so the team can win” somehow without you.

As is the case for many politicians, it’s not so much what she does, but how she does it that can make or break her future. If she fails to explain herself clearly and carefully (in a way that benefits her) criticism will come naturally. And ever since she was first picked up by John McCain last year she has poorly handled the attention of the national spotlight.

But how could she have handled this situation differently?

First of all, she shouldn’t have caught everyone off-guard. An anonymous leak to the press about rumors of a resignation would have spurred the criticism earlier. Then when she did announce her intention to resign she could have responded directly to her critics without any vague explanations about her reasons for resigning.

She would have a better understanding about what the arguments against her would be going into the announcement, and she could respond with a resounding message about how exactly her decision was best for Alaska - putting her critics (largely) to rest.

But if her current sorts of erratic behavior continue - in which she complains about the media and fails to explain the decisions she makes - her hopes for a 2012 nomination will slowly fade away.