Author: Jim Eltringham

Political consultant specializing in grassroots mobilization, online media, and public relations.

The Oncoming Gun Debate: Grassroots vs. Big Money

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The types of donors who write big checks to super PACs are writing more to the Gabrielle Giffords-led group seeking to influence the upcoming debate on gun control:

Until now, the gun lobby’s political contributions, advertising and lobbying have dwarfed spending from anti-gun violence groups. No longer. With Americans for Responsible Solutions engaging millions of people about ways to reduce gun violence and funding political activity nationwide, legislators will no longer have reason to fear the gun lobby.

On the other hand, the NRA faced enormous public pressure to cave to gun control forces in the wake of Sandy Hook, stayed silent for a week and then botched their first public statement after the massacre, and then added 100,000 new members in the ensuing weeks.  That’s 100,000 new NRA members in a month when the political environment should have been driving people away from the organization.  That doesn’t count what people within the NRA call “psychic members” – people who claim NRA membership due to an enthusiasm of the organization’s ideals but don’t chip in the $25 membership fee.

Speaking of that membership fee, some simple math means the NRA has raised $2.5 million of their own.  This week one donor gave $1 million to Giffords’s PAC.  While a handful of donors will likely raise millions at a time to support anti-gun politicians, the NRA will be able to raise dollars by the fistful from a much broader base of support.

If that model sounds familiar, you may be thinking of Obama 2012’s quarterly bragging that a wide base of small-dollar donors would trump Mitt Romney’s billionaire buddies (which it did).  Remember the Republican super PACs that tried to support Romney by spending huge amounts of money running constant TV ads opposing Obama’s reelection?  Remember how well that worked against Obama’s surgical GOTV efforts?  Exactly.

All else being equal, boots on the ground will trump money in the air.

The term “Astroturf” tends to be over-used in Washington.  But Giffords’ PAC is actually Astroturf: flooding money into the system to combat the organic political influence of 4.2 million Americans.  The NRA has a big idea (gun rights) and a big group of people who support it and are motivated enough to take action.  They’ll call their Members of Congress, they’ll talk to their friends and neighbors, and they’ll vote.

There isn’t a check big enough to buy that kind of influence.

A rare good PR move for ARod

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Joel Sherman of the New York Post (America’s Newspaper of Record) published an exclusive (and extensive) interview with Alex Rodriguez’s doctors yesterday.  On a day where an empty Hall of Fame induction press conference underscored the sport’s reliance on media perceptions, Sherman’s article is a great PR move from a player that could use it.  If you can spell ESPN, you know that Rodriguez was MIA in the playoffs coming off two injury-riddled seasons, and what effect that had on his relationship with the forgiving and always-adoring New York sports fans.

This Sherman exclusive – which shares intricate details of the nature of his current injury – is a great public relations move.  If you were using baseball metaphors, you’d call it a solid 2-run double.

Given the level of detail the medical staff shares about the status, it’s clear that Rodriguez had to give his blessing for the revelations, and that was smart.  Without a single clichéd, Bull Durham-esque quote from the third baseman on being “more disappointed than anyone” or “not getting it done” during his horrendous postseason, two doctors went back and forth practically amazed that he could even walk during September and October.  They also debunk the whispers that past steroid use caused Rodriguez’s injury.  Best of all, Rodriguez and the Yankees stay out of the story.  The medical information alone speaks for itself and doesn’t need framing.  Heck, it makes you wonder if Rodriguez will play another game again at all.

And there’s why this is a great story.  Demanding fans and the 24-hour sports news machine feed each other, and the meal is often re-digested.  In this case, we all know the story: ARod, the richest player in baseball history, doesn’t live up to expectations and the fans hate him for it.   More coverage begets more boos raining down from the upper deck, and boos in turn beget more negative coverage.  Sherman’s story probably won’t stop that, but it does frame the last three years of Rodriguez’s career in a badly needed new – and much more flattering – light.

Christie: Palin Redux?

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

So far, 2016’s most buzz-generating possible Presidential candidate in Governor Chris Christie.  Every move the guy makes in recent weeks has been viewed through the lens of implications for 2016.  Was he too chummy with the President?  Was he too combative with the Speaker?  Is he moderating himself to appeal to independents?

Back in 2011, it looked like Chris Christie could have stepped into the Republican primary and carved out an immediate niche as a forceful voice opposing government largess.  At the time, some idiot even said that political memories are short, so if he wanted a shot 2012 was his time.   That might prove true now, as Christie finds himself as the most prominent nationally-recognized Republican in the public consciousness.

It’s the same spot Sarah Palin found herself in following the 2008 campaign.  Suddenly, the governor of Alaska was the standard bearer for a party in disarray, while still trying to play the role of maverick outsider.  Palin proved ill-equipped.  (After all, it’s tough to look Presidential by shutting down “lamestream media” contact to communicate through Facebook posts.  Crashing the Iowa straw poll to steal headlines wasn’t particularly helpful either.)

Christie isn’t likely to step into the same pitfalls as Palin, but he has a 2013 re-election effort that will likely be colored by the shadow of 2016.  Factor in that the national media already accepts  Christie as the GOP front runner, and it makes for a pretty big target the governor will have to lug around with him for a while.

I’m just as special as everyone else

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

An article making the rounds today points out that America’s freshmen and freshwomen have an inflated sense of their own specialness – and that may have some long-term personal repercussions:

Pyschologist Jean Twenge and her colleagues compiled the data and found that over the last four decades there’s been a dramatic rise in the number of students who describe themselves as being ‘above average’ in the areas of academic ability, drive to achieve, mathematical ability, and self-confidence… While students are much more likely to call themselves gifted in writing abilities, objective test scores actually show that their writing abilities are far less than those of their 1960s counterparts.

…But if you found yourself bothered by a person always talking about how wonderful they are, remember that their future may not be bright.

“In the long-term, what tends to happen is that narcissistic people mess up their relationships, at home and at work,” Twenge said. Though narcissists may be charming at first, their selfish actions eventually damage relationships.

It’s not until middle-age they may realize their lives have had a number of failed relationships.

The good news is that heightened levels of narcissism may cause many young people to read this article and think, “Hey, this is me!”  The bad news is that no one reads anymore.

 

3 things the NRA got wrong today

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

The National Rifle Association was already in a tough position when Wayne LaPierre took to the podium this morning.  A full week after the violence in Connecticut, the nation’s biggest advocate of gun rights broke its self-imposed silence to offer their side of the recent debate.

LaPierre’s calls for increased school security and have been widely panned.  That’s no surprise: the press conference really was a no-win situation, which they must have known when they decided it would be held on the Friday before Christmas weekend.  There is nothing LaPierre could have said that would have drawn a positive response; this is an “against-the-spread” PR situation where the biggest victory is in making the smallest waves.

Yet there were three points that stood out in the official NRA response that clouded even that goal:

1. Making it all about the NRA.  LaPierre explained his organization’s week-long silence as deferential to the community in mourning, but said he was forced to speak up:

Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one — nobody — has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face:  How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?

This has the makings of a pretty good thesis statement except, but it is off the mark on a couple points.  First, the noise and anger was not directed exclusively at the NRA in the last week.  Horrific events like those in Newtown stir the most visceral emotions; and in that maelstrom of sadness and pain thinking thoughts like “Ban all guns now!” is completely logical.  I’m sure there were plenty of freedom-loving Americans who, in the hours after the news of the shooting broke, would have gladly surrendered their Second Amendment rights to prevent a repeat of those events.  It would have been nice to acknowledge that – though there were plenty who took the opportunity to bash the NRA, those people whose allegiance to the Second Amendment was shaken a bit shouldn’t be lumped in with the Michael Moores of the world.

Second, people have been asking “How do we protect our children?” for the last week – nonstop.

Framing their statement this way makes the NRA look extremely narcissistic and a bit paranoid.  Yes, they will be under intense scrutiny from their political enemies, but that’s not who the most important audience was this morning.  The NRA needed to demonstrate understanding of the greater understanding of last week’s events to connect with the broader public.

2. Blaming the media.  The NRA followed a call for more security in schools with an admonishment of the media for their framing of the debate:

Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: “More guns,” you’ll claim, “are the NRA’s answer to everything!” Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools.

Perhaps this was an attempt at inoculation – framing the response before the inevitable response came.  But chastising the media while standing in front of the media only encourages more negative coverage.

3. Talking about guns.  Here’s the crux of the problem: the shooting in Connecticut wasn’t about guns, it was about a sick person who took children’s lives for reasons the general public does not know yet.  The discussions about gun control are one aspect of the reaction to the shooting.  Unfortunately, that’s the area of discussion where the NRA decided to dwell.

The NRA is charged with defending its members’ rights to own guns – so it makes sense that the gun control angle would be the policy arena that was of most concern.  But by acknowledging only that angle, the NRA legitimized the idea that the reaction to Newtown should be exclusively about gun control.  Even when LaPierre mentioned other factors – such as American culture’s promotion of violence through video games – it was framed as the shifting of blame away from gun ownership.

By presenting this morning’s press conference within the context of the gun control debate, the NRA missed an opportunity to reduce the gun control element by elevating and expanding the overall conversation about what to do in the aftermath of Sandy Hook.  In many ways, the NRA allowed its opponents to shape this morning’s statement – which is a sure recipe to lose your point.

How It Could Have Gone Better

The reality is that the NRA had something important and possibly resonant to say.  After expressing his sympathies (which he did), LaPierre could have stated that in a situation like this it is important to think clearly and rationally to find solutions which will keep our children safe – and not be distracted by policies which do nothing to protect our children but allow politicians to pat themselves on the back.  We should not and cannot, LaPierre could have said, sacrifice progress for the sake of easy motion.  (There would have been some context mentioning the NRA as a four-million-person membership organization, which LaPierre worked in well this morning.)

LaPierre could have continued: Over the coming weeks and months there will be necessary and important discussions about what caused the horror in Connecticut – discussions in which the NRA will lend whatever expertise we can.  Those discussions will surely involve expanded mental health services, school security, and (naturally) the limitation of gun rights.

On that last item, LaPierre might have noted that the reaction was understandable in the wake of such events.  Without accusing anyone of trying to score political points, he might have called attention to a high level of misinformation and misunderstanding floating around in the media and in social media discussions.  Then he could have unveiled guncontrolfacts.com (the URL is available for not that much money) or some other new website dedicated to illuminating that discussion with truth – because, again, the ultimate goal is to find solutions that work.  A question-and-answer session would have been highly contentious, but would have been better than ignoring questions.

And that would have been it, because the goal of today would have been to return to the public eye, express understanding and a willingness to talk, and then to let the other side overreact if they felt the need to.

There would have been no Asa Hutchinson discussing a task force to put armed guards in schools – that policy push could come down the road.  There would be no lambasting of the media or aggressive posturing, and certainly no opinions about the effects of video games and movies.  The reaction from the punditocracy would have still been hostile, but the NRA would be better positioned to mitigate the likely gun control proposals that will emerge from the Biden Commission.

There also would be no shrinking from the NRA’s core values – just a recognition that, sometimes, tone matters, and that an effective response doesn’t mean having all the answers.

Restricting free speech the right way

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

In America, for the most part, you have every right to say what you like.  But you may understand that it’s not always a good idea.

In decrying the mass media reaction to to the school shooting in Connecticut, Matt Lewis floated the idea of media control.  It was an intentionally over-the-top suggestion to demonstrate absurdity, but he has a point.  Separating recent events from the discussion, how many times have you heard (or even used) the phrase “the 24-hour news cycle” when explaining some social phenomenon or another?  It’s why our politics have been reduced to sound-bite-driven partisan hackery, it’s why Mark Sanchez has regressed as a quarterback, and it’s why “crisis communication” has become a must-have asset for big businesses.

Mama Eltringham had a saying back in the day: “The more hurry, the less speed” – meaning the faster you try to get something done, the more you tend to mess up.  Things like accuracy and thoughtful context fly out the window pretty quick when a media outlet relentlessly focused on scooping the other guys.  But accuracy and quality are essential elements for a press, so if they are flying out the window, someone will eventually come along and slam it shut.

Unimaginative libertarians hear the suggestion of “regulation” and bristle instantly.  But that can take many forms.  In the 1940s, it took the form of the Hutchins Commission, which famously outlined the duties of a  free and responsible press.  That commission (which was initiated by publishers and academics) sprang from concerns that while there were more and more people relying on the press, control of the mass media was falling into the hands of a few key players.  The key impetus behind the commission, though, was a fear that these concerns were the types of problems that, left unattended, would eventually result in rollbacks of the First Amendment.  The Hutchins Commission’s stab at self-regulation has now been taught for decades in Journalism departments across the country.

Today’s press faces the twin challenges of media consolidation and the ubiquity of information channels, including new/social media.  (The popularity of these new channels, incidentally, is a direct result of the lack of trust citizens have in the mainstream press.)  And of course there are the various strings attached to that dreaded “24-hour news cycle.”

Rollbacks on press freedom would not be good public policy, of course.  But since when has the quality of a policy ever prevented a knee-jerk implementation?  Federal law books alone have pages and pages of dumb or antiquated laws that aren’t removed for fear of public outcry.  In the right environment, media regulations could be in play – not today or tomorrow, but a bit farther down the path the press is currently on.

Before that day comes, major media outlets would be wise to put their heads together to think about how they are handling their freedom of the press, before some else thinks about it for them.

Merry Xmas, American Atheists

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The American Atheists annual anti-Christian Christmas billboard has attracted it’s annual outrage.  The Catholic League, as expected, issued a response, focusing on the use of iconic imagery of a crucified Jesus.

This has to be the gift that keeps on giving for both groups.

The Atheists can’t be winning many converts to their non-religious religion; their messages are muddied and non-persuasive.  Christmas and Easter tend to be times of year where people identify more with religion, so it isn’t the time to try to take a crowbar and peel off the less devout.  Further, using Christmas images like Santa Claus while arguing against the celebration of Jesus Christ sends a mixed message.

The Christmas season is replete with Christian imagery, which likely cheeses off the hardcore atheists who would write checks to an outfit like American Atheists.  Making a public statement during Advent is the messaging equivalent of letting off steam.  It’s great timing for media coverage, too.

Getting some press attention and giving donors something to write checks for is probably plenty for the enterprise to be called a success.  But it sure isn’t effective for advancing their organization if the idea is to create more atheists.

In so many ways, Christmas is a season of guilt; you may feel guilty about not keeping up with old friends, or that you don’t do more for the less fortunate.  Have you ever been in a Catholic Church in the weeks before Christmas?  It’s packed to the gills with good folks whose lives got away from them and who are trying to slip some extra pew time in before the close of the fourth quarter.  Maybe American Atheist reasons that people would like to shed that guilt; they are incorrect.

We do it because we want to go to church for 52 weeks, but it’s easy to skip a week – just like we give to homeless shelters and food drives and Toys for Tots now because we know we should have earlier, but didn’t.

Christmas is a time when we’re all a bit closer  to the people we want to be.  You might be a religious person who has disagreements with your church’s stance on something or other throughout the year, but Christmas is rarely one of those points of contention.

That makes it pretty easy for a group like the Catholic League to stand up, draw support, and win some favorable coverage.  Who knew they’d get such a nice Christmas gift from an atheist?

Powerless

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Suddenly, a phone call I got 13 1/2 years ago makes sense.

Today’s post was going to be about the big atheist billboard in Times Square, and it was going to be sarcastic.  Today is different now than it was this morning.  With 11 days to go before Christmas, a disturbed person in Connecticut has made good hearts everywhere heavy and sad, made devout hearts everywhere question their beliefs, and made peaceful hearts everywhere sad and mad at the same time.

Why am I talking about such a big event on a blog that’s read by a dozen people on a good day, with 10 of them stumbling by accidentally?  Why shout from a non-platform?  It’s actually quite appropriate, because today I feel helpless and small.

Unfortunately, it seems like this story gets replayed every few years.  Among others, there was Jonesboro, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and today Sandy Hook Elementary School.  I had a brother attending Virginia Tech in 2007, which is the closest I’ve been to having a personal stake in any of these.

Today’s shooting actually made me think back to Columbine, though.  That night, while sitting in my dorm room at UMass, I got a call from my Mom.  I knew about how horrible that day’s shooting was, but getting a call that night seemed a bit odd.  She must have been shaken up more than she let on, I reasoned at the time.

I get it now.

Today’s shooting is not the first school shooting since I became a Dad.  But Sandy Hook is unmatched in human toll since Virginia Tech, and the children in that school were just a few years older than my daughters – short years which I know will fly by.

In 2007, by the time I heard anything about Virginia Tech, my brother was safe and sound in his off-campus apartment; the threat was apparently over.  The massacre in Connecticut makes me worry – not about today, but about tomorrow.  I want to go home, bolt the doors, and huddle with my family.  No one goes outside anymore.  The End.

That’s not realistic; my little girls are going to get bigger every day and they are inevitably going to go to school.  And with that realization comes the next logical thought about these two little souls were entrusted to me and my wife:  “Oh, my God.  I can’t protect them.”

Naturally, we all grieve for the families of the victims.  Yes, we feel a mix of anger and confusion directed toward the apparently deceased gunman.  And if we are completely honest, surely we have wondered to ourselves why God would let this happen.  Scrolling through my Facebook feed, though, I see something else.  “I can’t hold my babies tight enough tonight,” said a high school classmate.  “Giving extra kisses to my baby today,” said a college friend.  The sentiment has been echoed by former softball teammates, ex-colleagues, clients, and others I’ve met in various walks of life.  The only common threads are our children and our fear for them.

Suddenly, I know why Mom and Dad were so worried.  Today is heartbreaking.  But tomorrow is terrifying.

Lack of enthusiasm? No problem.

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Resurgent Republic posted this infographic last week (which I swiped from an email from Pennsylvania political consultancy ColdSpark Media):

RR_Infographic

The full-size picture does it more justice.  It charts various groups, how strong their turnout was in 2012 versus 2008, and how excited the said they were to vote.

In the last month and a week, it seems like no two Republicans can talk to each other without a discussion of What Went Wrong.  It’s a great conversation because there’s no wrong answer.  Every person who says, “I’ll tell you what Romney missed out on…” and then fills in a reason is usually right.  So the tactical deficiency in that picture is a puzzle piece, but it isn’t the whole problem.

All that said, check out the bluest of the blue groups, staunch Obama demographics like single women, 18-29 year olds, and Hispanic voters.  Isn’t it funny that the blue groups that were least excited about voting but voted more than the red groups that were more excited?  Part of the vaunted Obama turnout operation was figuring out who needed to vote and doing what it took to drag them to the polls; this sure makes it look like the credit was well-deserved.

Googlizing Campaigns

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

If you caught the tail end of the Roger Hedgecock show on Friday night, you may have heard me chatting with guest host Matt Lewis about the use of data in campaigns.

Much has been written in the past few weeks about the amazing things the Obama 2012 campaign did in identifying and turning out voters.  Just as much has been written about the Romney campaign’s failure to do the same thing, but it isn’t quite as fair.  There were many reasons Obama won, but the ability to take advantage of more channels of information to identify voters was a big part of it.

The private sector has been doing this for years.  For advertisers like Google and Yahoo! and e-commerce sites like Amazon, knowing what you do and  where you click online is their bread and butter.  It helps them put products in front of you that you’re more likely to buy, because they don’t make money if you don’t click.  Obama’s team was better at adapting those techniques to the campaign world.

What I didn’t get to talk about with Matt do to time constraints was the fact that Republicans can take a great deal of solace in the fact that these aren’t new magical spells being cast by technological wizards.  These are old hat tactics that can (and probably will) help Republicans with in the next campaign cycle.  For years, the advertising dollars have been moving toward personal advertising (like online ads) which can present content to an audience with much greater precision than mass advertising.

Romney adviser Stuart Stevens was ridiculed for saying that Mitt Romney ran less of a national campaign than Barack Obama, but he’s right, and Obama was right to do it.