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.

Why Do Political Campaigns Still Use Yard Signs?

Part 1 of our 10-part series: “21st Century Campaigning”


Since the beginning of American elections, there has been a presence of campaign images displayed to support a particular candidate or party. While it’s difficult to say for sure, modern yard signs may have been used as far back as the 1920s or earlier.

Yet in all this time there has been relatively little research done (with a few notable exceptions from pioneering grad students) on the effect yard signs have on a campaign's success.

Conventional wisdom - for many, at least - is that yard signs help build a candidate’s name recognition. They also, in theory, help a voter make a decision based on who’s lawn the yard sign is posted on (for example, if it is a conservative neighbor who has posted the sign, and the voter is conservative as well, he would likely feel comfortable voting for the candidate advertised in his neighbor’s yard).

This may be quite accurate for local races. The smaller the race, the greater the impact the sign might have. But for state and federal races, yard signs really don’t persuade many people. They’re actually very ineffective in those terms.

If you don’t believe it, ask yourself when was the last time you made a voting decision based off a yard sign. You probably never did.

And with yard signs being more expensive than canvassing, phone calls, and direct mail, it’s not likely that campaigns are going to rely on such “conventional wisdom” without doing a little cost analysis first. (e.g. How much money do we have? What can we spend it on to get the most number of votes per person?)

Ultimately yard signs - under most circumstances - just aren’t cost effective for these purposes.

Except campaigns still use yard signs.

If they can’t persuade voters, what reasons do campaigns have to use them?

There are a few different theories to answer that question.

One recent study by Costas Panagopoulos of Fordham University finds that posting street signs which remind people to vote actually pushes higher voter turnout. This is something of an extension of an earlier study (Henson, 1977) that explored the relationship between yard signs and turnout in Omaha.

If higher prevalence of yard signs means higher turnout, then certainly the GOTV relevance would be a driving factor for campaigns to consider.

Except there’s no guarantee that higher turnout means more voters supporting your campaign. The liberal who occasionally forgets to vote may be reminded by a sign for a GOP candidate, or a conservative might remember thanks to a Democrat’s sign.

Some studies - as well as our own experiences - also find that yard signs can be very important for new candidates because their prevalence demonstrates the campaign’s ability to organize - something very important for their credibility.

Political campaigns might also be encouraged to produce yard signs because they’re so well grounded in American elections. In fact, a 1997 study (Kenny and McBurnett) says that in addition to television ads and other modern forms of campaigning, candidates will produce yard signs, bumper stickers, etc. because they also “let tradition guide them”.

But it’s not tradition for the sake of tradition is it?

Probably not. The truth is the prevalence of your yard signs vs. that of your opponent’s does have a meaningful impact. That’s because activists (the volunteers and donors) are very supportive of this tradition. If your campaign has fewer signs, they’ll be more discouraged about your prospects for victory, thus they’ll be less motivated to walk neighborhoods, make calls, or give money.

Additionally, the larger the campaign, the more some activists will want your sign in his or her yard - to the point that they’re willing to cover the cost. This was seen most recently in the 2008 presidential election when neither the Obama nor McCain campaigns were quite so willing to give out a lot of yard signs for free.

In fact, the Obama campaign went so far as to charge $5 for a sign, and people got them anyway - and in huge numbers. Obama was a particularly inspiring candidate and the laws of supply and demand allowed his campaign to charge for a product that would otherwise be completely free. Simply put, he was so inspiring that there was actually a demand for his yard signs - a demand you could put a price tag on…literally.

So just because a yard sign isn’t going to directly effect a voter’s decision (especially in the technology age of the most impressive television ads, web design, and mailers ever seen) they still hold a great importance. Sure, political professionals are adapting to new methods of campaigning, but the old ones still have value.

And that’s a good thing. For the political individual, yard signs are fun to put up on the lawn, and it would be a shame to see them go away.

It just wouldn’t be autumn in an even-number-year without them.


Come back for our Tuesday post on phone banking!

Does the Democratic Hierarchy Lack Diversity?

There’s an interesting new article in the latest edition of Campaigns and Elections, the insider magazine for political consultants. Even in the Obama era, the vast majority of consultants in the Democratic Party are still typically white men.

Despite a handful of firsts for African-American consultants over the past two decades—Minyon Moore’s post as political director of the DNC during the 1996 cycle, Donna Brazile’s elevation to campaign manager for Al Gore in 1999, Howard Dean’s naming of Cornell Belcher to the DNC’s top polling post in 2005—several of the black political consultants and operatives interviewed say they still often feel like a suspect class in the eyes of many major campaigns and by some in the party committees. Absent new efforts from within the Democratic Party and from within the black political community itself, they don’t expect that to change anytime soon.

The article explains that most jobs held by African-American strategists within the Democratic establishment are for ethnic-targeting pursuits, often for minority-majority districts. Yet “the reality for many black consultants, says Belcher, is that they can’t speak out against people they want to work for. Too much criticism of the party establishment and the consulting industry carries risks, especially for younger operatives hoping to build a name and a career.”

Furthermore, the American Association of Political Consultants says that of its 1,123 members, only about one-in-five are women.

Luckily, things do appear to be changing, and without any specific efforts to increase diversity on the part of the upper-levels of the Democratic hierarchy.

A new generation of African-American operatives has graduated from the Obama campaign. As they work their way into the elite levels of government and politics, many see a golden opportunity to diversify the top tier of the political industry.

“In the twenty years that I’ve been working in politics, I haven’t seen a time where we’ve had such a deep bench of African-American operatives who can work in politics,” says Steve Hildebrand, who is white and was Obama’s deputy campaign manager in 2008.

Similarly, many in the first wave of black consultants (including Moore and Brazile) came out of the first Jesse Jackson campaign in 1984. With a successful campaign for the nation’s first black president, the advancement of African-American political workers might have another boost in years to come.

And with organizations like EMILY’s List recruiting progressive women for campaigns, the prevalence and prominence of women within the Democratic establishment of consultants may increase soon as well.

Still, some warn that the success of the Obama campaign might tame concerns of minority and female advancement in these ranks. After all, it was an incredibly diverse campaign, but it still had huge numbers of white men within it (granted, it was far more proportional to the demographical make-up of the U.S. than usual).

What’s more, relying on the Obama campaign might not be wise for diversifying the larger Democratic Party. As we mentioned in a previous post, many Obama operatives from 2008 are not so willing to work for politicians other than the current president.

Hopefully, though, the progress some see will continue.

Not too surprisingly, the article had a lot less to say about the demographical trends of GOP consultants.

We recommend reading the entire article here.

21st Century Campaigning: A New Series

Now that July has come, WAYLA is introducing its third series, “21st Century Campaigning!”

Every few days we’ll bring you a new post as part of this ten-part series on campaign tactics and methods that drive a successful election effort. The topics will include…

• Phone Banks
• Small vs. Large Races
• Fundraising
• Campaign Ads
• Public Relations
• Polling
• Voter ID
• Get-Out-the-Vote (GOTV)
• New Media Strategies

In the age of “on-demand” where the consumer - or for our purposes, the voter - has more control of what he/she sees than ever, how do campaigns convince Americans to vote for them? With campaign finance reform, how can they still raise money? With the decline of landline telephones and newspapers, how are political professionals transitioning from conventional campaigns to 21st Century ones?

These will be the tough questions we ask throughout the series. We'll look at the histories of these different campaign strategies and dive in to how American politics is adapting to the ever-changing world.

Join us Friday for our first topic: Yard Signs!

Political Fundraiser Ends in Chaos!

There’s a bizarre new story out of Cardiff, California today. Last night at a house party fundraiser for Francine Busby - a Democratic candidate for California’s 50th Congressional District - police not only arrested the host and a guest, but pepper-sprayed several attendees.

From what it looks like, this is how it all started: a conservative next-door neighbor started shouting “disparaging remarks” about Busby and gays earlier in the evening (the host, Shari Barman, is openly gay and lives with her partner, Jane).

Then the neighbor called the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department at 9:33 PM to issue a noise complaint, telling the deputy that a loudspeaker and cheering was keeping him awake. Of course, the microphone Busby used to speak to the guests had been off for over an hour, and all other neighbors in the area said they didn’t hear anything (including one who slept through the fundraiser, and another who had her windows open).

Soon enough, the Sheriff’s deputies arrived on the scene and confronted Barman about the noise complaint.

“When [Deputy Marshall] Abbott arrived, [Sgt. Thomas] Yancey said, he told Barman about the complaint, and she uttered an expletive about a neighbor. Abbott asked Barman for her birth date so he could issue a noise warning, but Barman refused to give it, he said.

Barman tried to walk away, Yancey said, and Abbott grabbed her. The guests took Barman away, and Abbott used pepper spray on them. In the chaos, someone kicked the emergency response team member, a woman who is 5-foot-2, Yancey said.

‘He was pepper-spraying the faces of anyone who tried to talk to him,’ Busby said. ‘People were stunned. It was something that none of us has experienced.’

In her statement, Barman said she asked the deputy why he needed her birth date, because he knew her name and where she lived.

‘He told me I was under arrest, grabbed my right arm, twisted it behind me and threw me on the ground,’ she said.”

So they called dispatch and soon enough they had six more patrol cars and a helicopter for backup!

In defense of the excessive response, Yancy told the San Diego Union-Tribune that the deputies felt threatened with so many guests in the house. “We don't like people standing behind us – we have tasers, guns, clubs,” he said.

Barman was “arrested and jailed on suspicion of battery on a peace officer, and resisting, delaying and obstructing a peace officer.” One guest, Pam Morgan, “was arrested and taken to the Encinitas Sheriff's Station, where she was cited for resisting, delaying and obstructing a peace officer.”

Now the story gets kind of political.

Busby told the press that she would demand an explanation from the Sheriff’s Department for their actions. Yancy responded, saying “If Francine Busby was there, why not take a leadership role, step up, and nip this thing in the bud?” Busby shot back, saying she couldn’t really intervene because the deputies were pepper-spraying the crowd indiscriminately.

Finally, in an update this morning, the Sheriff’s Department released a statement saying they would conduct an internal affairs investigation.

Now, anyone who has ever attended a small house party fundraiser will understand just how crazy this story really is. The house is typically packed with happy, middle-aged donors who come to see their candidate speak and socialize with one another. According to the reports, this one was no different.

Except that it ended with the host being arrested and dozens of guests getting pepper-sprayed or tazed.

But it does speak truth to a simple concept - political activists (who make up the bulk of these sorts of fundraisers) have very strong feelings about their beliefs. That’s why the conservative neighbor went so far as to call the cops on the liberals, and why the liberals refused to comply with the normal procedure for such a complaint.

We can’t even imagine the headache this story will cause the Busby campaign staff.

Who Are You Looking At in 2012? - Results

Thanks to everyone who participated in our survey! We got a lot of interesting perspectives and predictions for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.

The winner, at 18%, was Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), the Republican Vice Presidential nominee in 2008. According to one respondent, “Palin is the front runner, since [the GOP] didn't have a really great speaker during the Republican Convention, [there is] no way of gauging the possibilities.”


A sudden surprise front-runner was former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) who lately has been making a surge in media coverage. Yesterday on Meet the Press he told David Gregory he was not considering another presidential campaign, but according to Politico today, “many of his loyalists expect one and remain at the ready for 2012.”

Romney also made a point of criticizing Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) for his recently-revealed affair with a woman in Argentina. He said that governors must be held to a “higher standard” because “the culture of the nation” can be hurt by their failings. It certainly seems like something a Republican presidential candidate would say in order to appeal to the culturally conservative base in preparation for a primary.

In fact, everything about his spotlight appearances cry “campaign.” From the first Politico article:

Whenever Romney has a major TV appearance or pens an opinion piece, a PAC staffer, Will Ritter, circulates the news to an e-mail list of the former governor’s extended political family…

…When Romney does a high-profile Sunday show like he did yesterday, for example, that means that former communications aides such as Matt Rhoades and Kevin Madden will join PAC spokesman and longtime adviser Eric Fehrnstrom to help prepare their old boss, either in person or over the phone. When he’s delivering a speech, as he did earlier this month on national security, other former campaign officials such as media consultants Russ Schriefer and Stuart Stevens are brought in.

And Romney is looking good within the Republican Party. Many see him as a good pro-business candidate that can legitimately attack the Obama economic strategy.

But Romney isn’t the only one reaching out to the media. Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), who tied for a surprising last place in our poll, has also been making headlines in political circles.

He recently made his own criticisms of Sanford on CNN.



And he made sure to let the nation know that he was ready to certify Al Franken as Minnesota’s Democratic Senator once the state’s high court issued their ruling. This should help him with his credentials as being less partisan. In fact, one of Pawlenty’s major selling points will be that he isn’t so in-line with the far-right - thus he’s electable. That could be a major plus in a Republican primary in 2012.

All-in-all, these media outreach efforts are right out of the traditional presidential campaign playbook. In a 1972 memo to then-Governor Jimmy Carter, aide Hamilton Jordan wrote

“[I]t is necessary that we begin immediately to generate favorable stories and comments in the national press…Once your name begins to be mentioned in the national press, you will not lack for invitations and opportunities to speak in major groups and conventions…[The press’s] recognition and acceptance of your candidacy as a viable force with some chance of success could establish you as a serious contender worthy of financial support from major part contributors.”

Other names that came out of the survey were Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) (if the GOP is ready for a minority candidate), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (who one respondent said was one of the only Republicans on-message at the moment), House Minority Leader John Boehner, and former Gov. Tommy Thompson (R-WI) who ran in 2008.

We’ve already discussed Jindal’s chances in previous posts. He may have to secure his popularity with his Louisiana constituency first. Although the other three candidates are possibilities, we’re not putting much weight behind their chances. Gingrich and Thompson both left their political careers a while ago and they both have sex-scandal skeletons in their own closets. Boehner probably won’t run seeing as he already has a powerful position in the House.

Several respondents said they had “no idea” - it’s far too early to tell. That’s probably a good answer. A couple mentioned General David Patraeus. The General would certainly be a strong candidate (in theory) for a GOP primary, but it is definitely unlikely that he would leave the military for a political stint.

Outside of our survey there are other names being thrown around, including former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR), Sen. John Thune (R-SD), Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN), and Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) who recently replaced Sanford as Chair of the Republican Governors Association.

It’s no surprise that most of the names being mentioned are governors. Republicans in Congress are particularly unpopular these days and historically governors have had an easier time in the presidential field because of the lack of a voting record to attack.

Huckabee and Daniels may have an especially good chance. Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus in 2008 and is a recognizable figure in national politics. His populist message and program at Fox News give him ample opportunity to succeed with the conservative base. Daniels, though not well-known outside his own state, has an acceptable record as governor and - unlike many Republicans - hasn’t yet given Democrats much to attack him on. Thune may have difficulty with name recognition, but his ties in Washington would be useful. Barbour is unlikely to make it outside Mississippi, however, because he is a former tobacco lobbyist.

Another surprise from our survey was the frequent mention of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as a Vice Presidential candidate. He is called a “rising-star” who is on-message and speaks well to the base. He also is known for introducing Republican solutions so the GOP does not appear to be the “Party of No.” As a Congressman, he probably wouldn’t be a viable presidential candidate (House members seldom are) but he is frequently mentioned in the national press and couldn’t refuse the opportunity to be on the ticket if he is asked. Dick Cheney even mentioned him in a recent interview - before any other Republican - as a young, talented politician who gives the party hope.

Thanks again in taking part in the survey! As 2012 comes closer we’ll keep up-to-date and look back at these results and our own analysis.


UPDATE: An interesting new Pew Poll finds that two of the previously mentioned Republicans - Palin and Gingrich - are fairly popular within the party, but extremely divisive otherwise. A third - Romney - is fairly popular overall, but just less than a third of respondents could not say whether they had a favorable or unfavorable view of him yet.

Needless to say, these results are good for Palin and Gingrich as far as primary prospects go - as long as electability isn't a principle concern to the GOP base - but not so much when it comes to a General Election. The public's opinion of Romney will no doubt further develop as the 2012 race comes closer.

Michael Jackson: "I Never Get Into Politics"

That’s what the late King of Pop told Ebony magazine back in 1992 - he just wasn’t political. Of course, by the end of his life, it wasn’t quite by choice. In 2004, for example, the Congressional Black Caucus wouldn’t even meet with him when he asked.

As USA Today reported at the time:

"They had turned down his request to attend its meeting Wednesday, saying they were too busy dealing with legislative issues affecting black Americans."

No wonder his friend, the Rev. Al Sharpton, said yesterday that many who were lionizing him in death wouldn’t even go near him for the past seven years.

But in his glory days Michael was a more visible figure, greeted by and playing for presidents. He received awards and honors from Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He played the Clinton Inauguration alongside Bob Dylan, Elton John, and Stevie Nicks.


But despite a DNC fundraising concert he played in 2002 (where he helped raise $2.5 million for voter registration efforts) Jackson never did get very partisan. Of the two icons that passed away yesterday, it was Farrah Fawcett who actually contributed to a political campaign.

Of course, that didn’t stop the 24-hour “all politics all the time” news networks from covering Michael’s death as the only story last night.


What else are we looking at?

As it turns out, the Mark Sanford press conference on Wednesday had one noticeable mishap. The conservative Fox News identified him as a Democrat in their coverage. We wish we could say it was a normal error, but given their track record in journalism, it’s hard to be sure.

The conservative interest group, Club for Growth, is running a new campaign against Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA). Although they need approval from the FEC first, they’re trying to get their members to demand refunds for their Specter contributions. Specter’s GOP opponent, former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA) is a former president of the Club for Growth.

It’s well known that Washington DC can get way too hot during the summer, and the White House Press room can be the most heated place in the city. So White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs cooled off yesterday by allowing members of the press corps dunk him for charity.



It was all part of the White House luau yesterday, where President Obama had members of Congress over for quite the picnic.



Finally, don’t forget to take part in our survey: Who Are You Looking At in 2012! Tell us who you think will be the Republican nominee to take on Obama. Email your thoughts to Dave@HogensenStrategies.com. It’s fast, easy, and fun - but your predictions are due Monday.

What Sanford Supporters Are Saying

A few quotes from the wall on the “Mark Sanford for President 2012” group on Facebook:

“Sorry but I cant be a part of this anymore.”

“…If you can't be trusted by your wife, why should I trust you as president? The libs are gonna eat this up. I am really blown away by this...I really thought he had more integrity than that.”

“Thanks for nothing [expletive]. You screw every principle of the party.”

“Damn you”

“dumb[expletive]”

“He was out cheating on his wife. Leaving this group now....”

And from multiple fans: “See ya”

A lot of them also say they’re now looking at former Gov. Gary Johnson (R-NV), a libertarian-minded fiscal hawk who’s getting some notoriety from the Ron Paul folks.

Then there was the blogger at www.Sanford2012.org who last night could only say “Well, I was wrong about Sanford, that’s for sure. I’ll post more later tonight…I’m going to take some time to clear my mind.”

If anyone still thinks the “Mainstream Media” (or “Drive-By Media” if you’re a Rush Limbaugh fan) is particularly brutal to Republicans, just look at how average folks using “New Media” are reacting.

By the way, don’t forget to participate in our post-Sanford-scandal survey: Who Are You Looking At in 2012!

Who Are You Looking At in 2012?

It’s been quite a week or so.

First Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) admitted he had an affair last year and he resigned his post as Chair of the Senate GOP Policy Committee. Then yesterday it turned out that Gov. Mark Sanford’s (R-SC) bizarre disappearance was due to an affair with a woman in Buenos Aires.


Just like that, two major contenders for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination are almost definitely out of the running.

So who’s left to take on President Obama?

We want to know who YOU think will be the Republican nominee in the next presidential contest!


Email us at Dave@HogensenStrategies.com with the name of the GOP candidate you think will face Obama (barring any more sex scandals) and a short analysis that explains your prediction.

Then we’ll post the results on Monday right here at WAYLA so you can see what other political enthusiasts are thinking.

It’s fast, easy, and fun - so why not?

Is Bachmann Underestimating the Availability of Public Information?

Our colleagues at 3rd Coast Research, a Democratic consulting firm based in Chicago, recently did a great blog post on Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-MN) comments on the U.S. Census.

In a recent Washington Times article, Rep. Michele Bachmann said that she was so worried that information from next year's U.S. Census will be abused that she will not fill it out beyond very minimal information. She said, "I know for my family the only question we will be answering is how many people are in our home. We won't be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond that." Bachmann added that the questions in the Census survey had become "very intricate, very personal."

So 3rd Coast Research completed a hypothetical census survey for the Congresswoman using publicly available information. Overall, they were able to answer 80% of the census survey for Bachmann with sources such as Lexis Nexis, the Almanac of American Politics, and Google.

Additionally, they found that an additional 5% of the survey could have been completed if they had bothered to make the 391 mile trip from Chicago to the Washington County Assessor office in the Twin Cities suburb of Woodbury (something they would have certainly done if they were working for Bachmann’s opponent). And using interviews and court record requests, they easily could have obtained much more useful information on the Congresswoman.

As 3rd Coast points out

The process used to complete the survey is standard in any opposition research process, and has no doubt been repeated for Rep. Bachmann several times.

Not only was it ridiculous for Bachmann to assume that her privacy would be better protected if she answered only a few questions for the Census, but it was a very telling simulation on the availability of public information.

Furthermore it demonstrates just how effective and important opposition research is for a campaign. It’s typically not too difficult to collect and can go a long way towards better knowing your opponent. Using the information can be helpful, depending on what you reveal, but in order to even make that decision you must have the research done first.