Ground Game: Orcas versus Narwhals

What we do hasn't changed - only how we do it.

Increasingly the basic strategy of identifying your supporters and getting them to the polls has been augmented by internet smart phone technologies.  Not so long ago campaigns identified supports two ways: (1) same-party voter registration rolls; and (2) canvassing voters by knocking on their doors or calling their telephones.   Then on election day, political party poll watcher would cross of a voters name at the precinct vote station when he or she arrived to cast their ballot.  Throughout the day party workers would collect these sheets, and campaign offices would call those supporters who had not yet voted to urge, remind, and in some cases, drive them down to the polls.

Ground Game: Field Offices

Field Offices Make the Difference

Ohio Map from Daily Beast showing Obama (Blue) Field
Offices compared to Romney (Red) Offices.

DEFINED:  Ground Game are campaign efforts to personally connect to supporters with the goals of identifying, communicating and motivating supporters to vote.    

After the votes are counted, inevitably the wave of stories about how Romney lost and why Obama won came flooding through the news - often with a smug "It-was-all-so-apparant" told-you-so tone.  

The 2012 Election Post-Mortem developed a number themes that have consequences for later elections.  The most important is the enduring critical importance of having a ground campaign.

Campaigns use a variety of methods to communicate with voters.  The most expensive, probably least efficient, and most annoying are the indiscriminate television commercial advertisements.  On the other end of the spectrum is having a supporter contact a personal friend.  The former is easy but massively expensive and inefficient.  The latter is harder to put into place and just as expensive but vastly more effective.

Obama confounded two pre-election predictions with his ground game:  The election would be so close that recounts were likely and his supporters would not run out in the same numbers as they did in 2008.  He did this with a superior ground game with campaign field offices as the base building block.

Obama had more Campaign Field Offices.  These field offices are boots-on-the-ground contacts to the retail voter.  Obama never closed many of his field offices in battleground states.  The number of field offices reflected critical disadvantage for Romney who only secured the nomination (arguably) in April of 2012.  

STATE                          OBAMA FIELD OFFICES              ROMNEY FIELD OFFICES

Ohio                                          131                                                40

Florida                                       106                                               47

Virginia                                       61                                                30

Such was the lag that even if Romney wanted to open up as many offices - he did not have the time.

Obama's Field Offices had one Job: Re-Elect Obama

According to the Atlantic's Molly Ball all of the Obama offices had one thing in common: they were almost exclusively devoted to Barack Obama.  Republican Field Offices typically were sponsored by the local or national GOP party and were devoted primarily to local candidates.  This may reflect, according to Ms. Ball, the fact that Romney campaign - to a larger degree - left much of the ground campaign to the National Republican party.

Voter Turnout: Where the Rubber meets the Road

The Only Poll that Matters is the one on Election Day

Abraham Lincoln did not invent get-out-the-vote efforts in 1840 but he explained it in his report to the then Whig Political Party.  It summed up as follows:  (1)  Divide the electorate into small Districts; (2) In each District maintain a "perfect" list of each registered voter; (3) Ascertain with certainty for whom each voter will support; and (4) Get all Whig-supporters to the polls.

Elections are decided not by the public at-large but by those who bother to vote.  Lincoln's checklist has remained unchanged over the following one hundred twenty eight years.  Although early voting, absentee voting, and mail in ballots have added opportunities and challenges - the maxims have remained the same:  Whoever can get more supporters to the polls wins the election.  Period.

Temperament

It says a lot about who and where you think you are...

In general:

Candidates who are behind go on the attack.  

Candidates who are ahead stay positive.

Mitt Romney took a surprisingly subdued tone during the final Presidential Debate that focused on foreign policy.  With discontent and criticism mounting on the Administration's actions and statements over the terrorist attack on September 11, 2012 in Libya, Iran's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the Fast and Furious debacle in Mexico - there was plenty of ammunition for Romney.  Following acrimonious tenor and attacks of the previous debates after Denver's first debate - many were surprised when Romney declined to attack Obama as forcefully.  

The only Romney attack that resembled the previous debates came when the Governor explained his characterization of the Obama's trip overseas as an Apology Tour:

"Mr. President, the reason I call it an apology tour is because you went to the Middle East and you flew to — to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to — to Turkey and Iraq. And — and by way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to the other nations. And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel. And then in those nations and on Arabic TV you said that America had been dismissive and derisive. You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations. Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators."

Debate Performance I: A Report Card Checklist

How they do depends on eight factors

Entering into the final stretch of the 2012 Presidential Campaign, the debates are upon us.  Debates are common place in State and Federal elections at all levels.  Presidential Campaign Debates are an opportunity to see well-funded and well-prepared candidates bring on their A game in the most watched political debates of the year.  

The value of the debates derive from the format.  Two candidates meet in an unscripted, uncontrolled environment without tele-prompters, notes, or back up.  The debates often provide an insight into the candidate's temperament under pressure.  In truth we elect a candidate less because of their positions on past issues, but rather their character to handle unforeseen future issues.

Liar...Liar

It's typically not a good sign....

Following his universally panned first debate performance, Barack Obama's campaign shifted the tone and tenor of their attacks against challenger Mitt Romney.  Before the debate Romney was the out-of-touch millionaire with off-shore tax havens seeking to tax the middle class in order to give the top 1% a tax break.  Romney looked down upon the 47% hard working Americans who, according to Obama, paid their fair share of taxes while Romney paid only 14% of his income in taxes.

Now Romney is a liar.  

Lexicon: Spending Words

Some words about spending don't really mean what you think.

It goes beyond the eye-rolling the typical American did when confronted with Bill Clinton's legalistic parsing of the word "is."  When accused of lying to the Grand Jury when he said "There is nothing going on between us," Clinton later defended his statement as truthful saying, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."  He was only continuing the frustrating tradition of lawyers and politicians to make words not mean what most people think they mean.

Two areas of government activity - taxing and spending - create an enormous amount of emotional responses both good and bad.  Today we will talk about words used about spending that don't necessarily mean what you think.

Spending Cuts - doesn't mean you are spending less.

According to National Public Radio, both President Obama and Rep. Paul Ryan have proposed alternative cuts in spending.  According to the news report, Obama " laid out a sweeping vision to cut government deficits by more than $4 trillion in 12 years through tax increases and spending cuts phased in over time."    At the same time, Rep. Paul Ryan, according to NPR proposed a "recent budget blueprint calls for more than $6.2 trillion in spending cuts — many unspecified — over the next decade."  

Neither man proposes a budget where the United States Federal Government spend less money ten years from now than it spends today.  Instead these proposals predict less spending compared to what would occur under the Congressional Budget Office's Baseline Projections.  This projection assumes all current laws stay in place.  So when you "cut" spending in Washington it doesn't mean you are spending less money this year compared to last year - it really means you assume you will spend much more in the future than your plan.

Investing - it sounds better than spending.

When Barack Obama signed the stimulus bill signed the 2009 stimulus bill, he used the word "invest" or  "investment" fifteen times in his speech.  Politicians  shy away from characterizing Government expenditures as "spending."  The word suggests a loss - that the money is spent, gone, with nothing to show for it.  An investment, on the other hand, suggests that we will obtain a return on that money - indeed we will get more money back than we spent.  

QUESTION:  What other words have you heard politicians use instead of the word "spending?"

The Electoral College I: Why we have Battleground States

Who votes for the President? You probably don't know.

Wellington Webb, Terry Philips, Camilia Auger, Pam Shaddock, Jenifer Trujillo-Sanchez, Don Strickland, Ann Knollman, Polly Baca, and Margaret Atencio went to designated place in 2008 and cast their votes for President and Vice President of the United States.  They were the only people to vote for President that day in Colorado.  

The Battle for Middle Earth

Only True Partisans think the other side are Orcs

Lost in the critique of the purloined video recording of Mitt Romney's comments to wealthy donors released last week, was his explanation why the campaign did not more aggressively attack Obama as a corrupt failure.  Romney (correctly) explained that elections are won by attracting the five to seven percent of uncommitted voters that are open to changing their prior votes.

Romney then gave a fascinating insight into his campaign's thinking about which message best sells to this critical audience:

Gaffes III: Candidates should never openly Psychoanalyze Voters

And if they do...they should only do it in glowing terms.

Speaking to a select group of wealthy contributors, the Presidential Candidate was asked why he felt that his message found difficulty taking hold within certain portions of the American Public, the Candidate set off an unintentional firestorm by guessing.  This prompted the media to psychoanalyze the candidate's true motivation.

In 2012 that Candidate was Mitt Romney.

In 2008 that Candidate was Barack Obama.

Political Polls: Tea Leaves for the Campaign Manager

When they go your way - talk them up.

When they don't - invoke Harry S. Truman.

Political polls are the proverbial tea leaves of political campaigns and become news stories in their own right.  Political polls are difficult creatures particularly in Presidential Elections because the Electoral College System narrows the focus down to 18 swing states - five of which lean Democratic and five lean Republican.  National Presidential polls are, if not worthless, very limited in value because we do not elect the President based upon a national vote - something Al Gore ruefully notes at most speaking engagements. 

Campaign Fundraising III: When you raise it matters

Email and the internet permit campaigns to be more targeted and timely in their fundraising efforts, particularly when it comes to raising money prior to the Federal Election Campaign Finance Disclosure deadlines.  Only slightly less important as how much a campaign raises - is when it gets raised.  Campaign must disclose how much they raised, from whom and in what amounts each month and quarter.  What was merely a regulatory event has grown to become a political news story.

When campaigns out raise their opposition during a reporting period it supports an argument that they have greater support from the public; and better means to follow through on delivering their message.  Out raising your opposition in the months leading up to the election gives the impression that you have momentum - even if you are behind in the total dollar amount raised.

As we discussed earlier, the drum beat out of both the Obama and Romney campaign is that the Romney Campaign and the GOP have out raised the opposition during the last several months.  Yet Democrats, at least as of July 31, 2012, had raised 587.7 million compared to the GOP $524.2 million.  Yet the fundraising emails from Democrats need a crisis to encourage people to donate.  

On August 31, 2012 - the deadline, the Democratic National Committee sent the following email for their Chair - Debbie Wasserman Shultz:

I'm going to guess your inbox is pretty full today. But think of it this way: This is one of the last fundraising deadlines before Election Day.With just 10 weeks left to go, we have limited time to make a difference for Democrats nationwide.If their races were already in the bag, if they already had all the resources they need, and if we didn't have that much on the line this year, I wouldn't ask you to make a donation today.But the stakes are high, President Obama and many Democrats across the country are in razor-close races, and these candidates need our help before they head into the final months.So if you can, please make a donation to Democrats before tonight's critical fundraising deadline:https://my.democrats.org/Tonights-DeadlineTomorrow morning, may you wake up to an uncluttered inbox -- and may Democrats in races across the country wake up to see that they're exactly where they need to be.Thanks for making that difference,DebbieDebbie Wasserman SchultzChairDemocratic National CommitteeP.S. -- We're closer to the finish line than you think. Chip in what you can today.

The email acknowledges that email inboxes must be pretty full today with requests for donations - showing just how critical that campaigns view the Finance Reports.

Use Meaningless Words II: Divisive

Rhetoric: Divisive proposals/policies are bad!

Reality: Big Issues can't be solved without upsetting someone - it means we have real choices

Divisive Defined: A derogatory label attached to an opponent's policies, proposals, or statements implying hostility, disdain, unwillingness to compromise, or callow disregard toward another group of people in an effort to create disunity, disharmony, and dissatisfaction. See also "wedge issues."  

When National Public Radio's Guy Raz asked Ari Shapiro how , Shapiro discussed the crowd's 

Discussing Paul Ryan's impact on Romney campaign events crowds, National Public Radio's Ari Shapiro told Guy Raz, "They really love Paul Ryan. They're passionate about this guy."

"What is it about Paul Ryan that gets them motivated?" Raz asked.

"They like the ideas he puts out," Shapiro said, "They like the budget, his willingness to not just criticize the other side, what the Democrats are doing, but put out proposals that are really controversial, that are, you know, very divisive in some ways, that have drawn a lot of criticism from Democrats. The Republicans I'm talking to see that as a badge of honor, and they think it was a bold decision of Romney to bring Ryan onto the ticket knowing that he's going to take all this incoming fire."

Political campaigns, and elections in particular, are - and should be - about competing policy ideas how to solve the issues of the day.  Some issues, especially important issues, cannot solved with universal consensus.  An election without differing proposed solutions and policies is an election with no meaningful choice at all. 

Still, it is a rhetorical device used across the political spectrum.  In his acceptance speech, Paul Ryan said, "You would think that any president, whatever his party, would make job creation, and nothing else, his first order of economic business.  But this president didn't do that. Instead, we got a long, divisive, all-or-nothing attempt to put the federal government in charge of health care."

Policies or proposals that target, favorably or unfavorably, one group over another are also labeled "divisive."  Two current examples:  

Proposals favoring one economic group over another, particularly in tax policy are labeled "divisive."  “'Congressman Cicilline engages in divisive class warfare where he tries to paint himself as someone who will stand up to the wealthy on behalf of the middle class,, said Doherty Campaign Manager Ian Prior."

Opposition Gay Marriage, particularly opposition, is labeled "divisive."  When Romney expressed support for traditional marriage, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation wrote, "If Gov. Romney truly desires to represent all Americans, Log Cabin Republicans encourages him to avoid divisive social issues and focus on jobs and the economy."

QUESTION:  Do you agree that "divisive" is an overused word in politics today?  What is an example you have seen where it was used correctly?

Campaign Fundraising Part II: It's more than digits

How much you raise matters

Graphic Taken from an excellent site:
 http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/derivatives/bank_exposure.html

Earlier we discussed the reality of money in politics given that we live in a free society where the expression of ideas - and paying to express those ideas - is a protected First Amendment right.  This article discusses the political impact money has on the perception of support that a candidate has in a race.  

At the end of each month, campaigns are to disclose their receipts and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission.  There are several numbers that can be used to argue that your campaign is riding the popular tail winds to victory.  

This post talks about how much money is raised.

It goes without saying that you want to be able to raise a lot of money.  Raising more money than your opponents gives the perception that you are the front runner.  Thus far, at least since this summer of 2012, Mitt Romney has out raised Barack Obama and that disparity has become a recurring fundraising message of the not just the Romney campaign but the Obama campaign as well.

On June 9, 2012 the Democratic Party sent out the following email under the subject heading "They outraised us."  

Britton --

This week we learned Mitt Romney and the Republican Party outraised us in May, bringing in $76 million to our $60 million. And that deficit is even worse once you include the millions of dollars a few wealthy special interests and billionaires are pouring into super PACs and outside groups.

If you don't want to read any further, I don't blame you. Support Democrats today and help build our grassroots organization with a donation of $3 or more.

For anyone wondering how one billionaire can influence an election, here's a perfect case study: Sheldon Adelson.

This casino owner's spending is a textbook example of the Republican battle plan. Here are just a few of his "investments" this year:

    -- Singlehandedly keeping Newt Gingrich's presidential bid alive for months by pouring $20
    million of his family's money into a pro-Newt super PAC.

    -- Donating $5 million to Speaker John Boehner's super PAC, aimed at protecting the GOP majority in the House, and targeting vulnerable Democrats.

    -- And just this week, after meeting with Romney last month, pledging $1 million to a Romney-
    affiliated super PAC.

They say one person can change the world, but I'm pretty sure this isn't what they meant.

As Democrats, we aren't counting on wealthy patrons to buy this election. We rely on millions of Americans stepping up to grow this organization and provide the resources to open field offices, organize on the ground, and push back against Adelson, the Koch brothers, and all the rest of these billionaires trying to use their money to control our future.

We're counting on people like you -- and that means we need everyone to step up if we're going to win.

When Romney out raised Obama again in June, the Democratic Party sent out an email under Joe Biden's name on July 28, 2012 with the subject line "Outraised":

Britton -- For the last two months, Governor Romney and the Republicans have outraised us -- and in the last month alone, they raised $35 million more than we did. They've caught up to us in the fundraising race for the first time this election, and we have to do everything we can to close the gap now -- before it's too late. Donate $3 or more today to help close the gap. We keep reminding you about this fundraising gap because when Governor Romney and the Republicans outraise us by that much, it matters. This fundraising gap means that Republicans may not only outraise us, they could outspend us this election -- on TV, in the field, and online. You better believe that when they're using their fundraising advantage to blanket the airwaves with misleading attack ads, Democrats across the board will feel the consequences. Our next big fundraising deadline is just a few days away -- and we have the chance to reverse this trend and keep Governor Romney and the Republicans from outraising us for the third month in a row. So help close the fundraising gap before the deadline on Tuesday. It's critically important. Donate $3 or whatever you can today. Of course it is not entirely that simple.  According to an excellent interactive chart in the New York Times - In June 2012: Romney raised $32,468,000 Obama raised $45,300,000 It was the donations to the political parties that put the Republicans over the top in June. RNC: $39,154,000 DNC $17,639,00 Add to that the SUPER-PAC contributions: Republican Restore our Future PAC:  $20,728,000 Democrat Priorities USA: $6,156,000.00 In total, during 2012, the Democrats have raised $587.7 million compared to $446.6 million for the Republicans - so it would take Romney et. al. to raise an additional $60 million above and beyond the Democrats each month to just erase the fundraising lead enjoyed by the Democrats. QUESTION:  Are you more likely to give to a candidate if he or she is raising more money than the opposition?

Exploit your Opponents Gaffes Part II:
Turn them into Fund Raising Opportunities
Updated 8/24/2012 9:51AM (See below)

Barely twelve hours had passed after GOP Missouri US Senate Candidate Todd Akins swerved into a political maelstrom with his "legitimate rape" comment, when Debbie Wasserman Shultz, the Democratic National Committee and Florida House Representative sent out emails to party faithful encouraging donations.

During a Sunday Morning show, The Jaco Report, on the Fox Station in Saint Louis, Candidate Akins was asked the predictable hard-facts-make-bad-law question about abortion in the event of rape.  It is a question asked of every Pro-Life candidate and should, according to Ann Coulter, be expect.  Rather than giving defensible prepared answers, Akins went completely off-script:

“From what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Akin said. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

Within twelve hours, the Democratic Party turned the gaffe into a fundraising opportunity.  Rep. Wasserman Shultz wrote:

In a year that has brought us no shortage of stunningly backward statements from Republicans on issues affecting women's health, the GOP Senate nominee from Missouri may have just taken the cake.

This morning, Rep. Todd Akin, explaining his opposition to abortion even in cases of rape, said that victims of "legitimate rape" don't get pregnant because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

What exactly, Rep. Akin, is an "illegitimate" rape? And what are these unnamed "ways" women have of avoiding pregnancy after being (legitimately) raped?

Now, Akin's choice of words isn't the real issue here. The real issue is a Republican party -- led by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan -- whose policies on women and their health are dangerously wrong.

The email then invites recipients to donate to the Democratic Party.

Romney immediately disavowed Akins' statement, “Congressman’s Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable, and, frankly, wrong.   Like millions of other Americans, we found them to be offensive.”

Akins for his part sought to quell the furor over his remarks, "This weekend I made a mistake. I used the wrong words in the wrong way. What I said was ill-conceived and it was wrong and for that I apologize. I’m a dad of two daughters and I want tough justice for sexual predators and I’ve always had a compassionate heart for the victims of sexual assault. 

The people from Missouri that elected me know I’m not perfect. We all make mistakes. When you make a mistake what you need to do is tell people you’re sorry. Don’t try and hide it. That’s why I have repeatedly said that I am very sorry for my comments.  Just because somebody makes a mistake doesn’t make them useless. We need a conservative in the United States Senate, and I am running to replace Claire McCaskill and get our country back on track.”

Unfortunately for Akins, what President Ronald Reagan said to Walter Mondale during the 1984 debate, in politics "if you are explaining; you are losing."

Akins' opponent, vulnerable US Senator Claire McCaskill, has also seized upon the gaffe seeking to raise money on the issue.  "Akin's record is riddled with policies and votes that hurt women. He thinks many forms of contraception — including the pill — should be illegal and voted against equal pay for equal work.  Together, we can make sure that Missouri has a Senator who has a proven track record of fighting for women."

A good gaffe, as discussed earlier, should further a perceived negative stereotype of the politician.  Here, an ardently pro-life Republican is painted as ignorant and hostile toward women.  This particular gaffe is so critical, in a swing state they may determine the balance of power in the Senate as well as Missouri's Electoral Votes, that Conservative leaders and pundits have called on Akins to withdraw so that another conservative candidate can face McCaskill.  

Negative Campaigning I: It's Nothing New
Yet, we will be told it's the worse mud slinging ever

Vice President Joe Biden lurched into all-too-familiar gaffe-territory when he went off the teleprompter and told the mostly African American Audience in Danville, Virginia, "[Romney] said in the first 100 days, he's going to let the big banks once again write their own rules. Unchain Wall Street. They're going to put y'all back in chains."  Later in his speech, Biden assured the Virginia crowd, " "With you, and I mean this, with you we can win North Carolina again."

The Romney campaign responded quickly, pulling out what appears to be well-honed theme, "[Obama's] campaign and his surrogates have made wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the presidency," Romney said. "Another outrageous charge came a few hours ago in Virginia, and the White House sinks a bit lower. This is what an angry and desperate presidency looks like."

Along with kissing babies, campaign rallies, and unrealistic promises, we are assured that the media and casual observers will decry how the political discourse has sunk to a new level of mud slinging.  Don't believe it for a moment, contested presidential political campaigns have always gone negative.

Political Historian Joseph Cummins, the author of "Anything for a Vote" said, "After researching every presidential contest from 1789 to 2004, my answer is that elections are not getting dirtier. They’re just as dirty as they have always been. " 

Cummins provides the following examples:

• 1836: Congressman Davy Crockett accuses candidate Martin Van Buren of secretly wearing women’s clothing: “He is laced up in corsets!”
• 1864: Presidential candidate George McClellan describes his opponent, Abraham Lincoln, as “nothing more than a well-meaning baboon!”
• 1960: Former president Harry Truman advises voters that “if you vote for Richard Nixon, you ought to go to hell!”

The 1828 Election between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson descended into baseless charges, such as:

• John Quincy Adams was a pimp to the Czar of Russia; and
• Andrew Jackson was engaged in adultery.

1964 - Lyndon B. Johnson claimed challenger Barry Goldwater would start a nuclear war sending the world into "darkness" in the infamous Daisy Attack Ad.

The Presidential Election of 1800 was the first hotly contested race pitting John Adams against Thomas Jefferson.  At the time candidates campaigned through surrogates.  The campaign got ugly quick.  Jefferson had others claim that Adams had a "hideous hermaphoditical character, which has neither the force nor firmness of a man."  Adams' supporters called Jefferson "mean spirited, low lived fellow, the son of half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

Anyone who tells you that political campaigns have grown too negative as if in earlier years we had a more elevated discourse about the issues, simply is ignorant of history and has a short memory.  So long as negative campaigning works (and it does) - we will have it.

QUESTION:  I believe that this is a problem that does not have a real solution.  Do you agree? If not why not?