Advocacy Consultant
Conservative blogger and pundit Matt Lewis launches his very own podcast today.
Those who see his appearances on MSNBC may know Matt as an authority on the national political scene. Few appreciate his deep understanding of diverse topics such as popular culture, music, sports, and classic television sitcoms. Hopefully his podcast will rectify that.
No, it has nothing to do with the incident in Mary Landrieu’s office – more on that later. Tech President today highlights a political ad in the race for Orleans Parish Coroner that’s sure to be a viral sensation.
Candidates call each other lots on names during a campaign, but Frankenstein is a new one. Can’t wait to see the direct mail from this race…
The President’s proposed spending freeze has touched off a debate between Keynesian liberals and free marketers over the role – and capabilities – of government spending. Perhaps you have seen talking heads bickering about these theories, but the best way to articulate this century-old dichotomy of economic theory is, of course, a rap battle:
What does it say about the state of journalism that this actually outlines economic theories better
Patrick Ruffini, one of the consultants who helped Scott Brown take back the people’s seat in Massachusetts, wrote an extensive wrap-up of the campaign’s online fundraising in the last month. The whole thing is a good read, but his assessment of the recent online innovations of each party at the very end is intriguing:
As we have written in the pages of the Washington Post, during the right’s online wilderness years (this “wildnerness” being the mirror image of being in power in Washington) many pundits wondered whether the right was at a permanent structural disadvantage online… [N]ow that the right has needed to use grassroots tools to break the Democratic lock-hold on Washington, they’ve done it in a big way. And it’s happened much faster, and with greater early electoral success, than the evolution of the liberal “netroots” which didn’t really take off until the end of Bush’s first term.
Much has been written about the Massachusetts race, and most of it is an exaggeration. But the studies of Brown and Virginia’s Gov. Bob McDonnell successful use of online tactics in winning campaigns underscores a running theme – like President Obama, their innovative campaigns were seeking to win an office held by the other party. All three were on the outside looking in.
As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. Political parties are made up of politicians, so of course they tend to be risk-averse – unless they have no office to risk.
In the wake of the wildly successful mobile fund raising campaign for earthquake relief efforts in Haiti, my Mom emailed me with a thought: could candidates do the same thing to raise money for a political campaign. The answer: while this method worked very well for Haiti, it may be more trouble than it’s worth for 2010 candidates.
The Rothenberg Political Report discussed some of the regulatory hurdles earlier this week:
First of all, candidates and campaign committees need to collect basic information about all donors including their name, address, and occupation. This is not necessarily prohibitive but candidates would need to establish a “best effort” to obtain the information after the contribution, according to a Federal Election Commission spokesman. This is more of a practical roadblock than a legal one.
Rothenberg also points out restrictions on corporate giving directly to campaigns, which would make it necessary to have an intermediary firm collecting and processing donations.
Then there’s the campaign cost: while the carriers likely waived any fees they would have collected for the Haiti effort, a similar fund raising program might result in charges of up to 40% of the donations, according to one industry source. That means for every $10 you donate, a campaign might see $6 – and less if there’s an third party processing the campaigns. Considering the up-front costs of creating the program and sending the texts, the program would have to be wildly successful to pay for itself.
Mobile and text messaging will continue to be important conduits for get-out-the-vote efforts and other messages from a campaign direct to voters, but the infrastructure to turn your cell phone into a “donate now” button isn’t there right now.
Our President is establishing a bad track record.
Much has been written and said on his drop in the polls over the last year, but his track record in trying to lend a helping hand has been particularly disturbing:
And lo, after one year had passed since the establishment of an official YouTube Channel for the Roman Catholic Church, did the Pope Benedict XVI come forth and say to the flock, Take ye these online tools, and useth them, and spread thy faith far and wide. And be not discouraged by those who cast doubt, nor by an inability to access a wifi hot spot.
One of the best books available on political strategy is Dedication and Leadership by Douglas Hyde. Hyde was a bigwig in the British Communist Party who left and became an active Catholic. His message to Catholics, through this book, was that despite the evils of Communism, the Communist party used effective techniques to recruit and retain membership – techniques which, he argued, could be used by any organization regardless of philosophy, including the Church. As a modern-day example, Hyde might point to the online tactics which helped elect Barack Obama’s which were then used for successful Republican candidates like Bob McDonnell and Scott Brown.
A wired Vatican fits nicely as another modern-day extension of Hyde’s vision; and any institution that ignores the tools of today as an outreach tool is destined to fail. Any man-made institution – even if divinely inspired – must recruit to survive. (Even Jesus Christ Himself knew that He wouldn’t run the Church forever and understood the need to recruit apostles.)
To put it another way: God helps those who help themselves.
Plus, this course of action is far more strategic and savvy than efforts which would simply offer the Church a PR facelift:
…but this may be a little too local, even for Arkansas:
Riding down Highway 165 through the Arkansas Delta, I knew I was about to experience one of the timeless traditions of Arkansas politics.
For more than 60 years — there is some dispute whether it is 64 or 67 — people have descended on the little town of Gillett to participate in the Gillett Coon Supper, where the main course is the exotic meat of locally hunted raccoon but the real dish is the political undercurrent that is impossible to miss. Within this humble event lies perhaps one of the most important lessons in Arkansas politics.
My former employer, Morton Blackwell, was very active in the 1964 campaign of Barry Goldwater. That campaign had a theme – “In your heart, you know he’s right” – that doesn’t really work in politics. One of the key lessons Morton would teach neophyte political operatives was that being philosophically correct did not always translate into electoral success. After Goldwater’s drubbing in 1964, those who had been in his corner broke into two camps, as Morton described it. Some became cynical, and vowed to leave politics, the other side vowed to fight for their ideas rather than with them.
One of the elements that made this second camp successful – and allowed them to regroup and elect Ronald Reagan in 1980 – was a lack of cynicism and a positive attitude.
And that’s why this speech, even if it is only about a silly little TV show, is worth repeating:
There are always places – in the world and the media landscape – for new and innovative ideas. Those places aren’t always easy to find, but are usually worth the search.
In discussing the Scott Brown victory with friends and colleagues over the past few days, some angles of the race incredibly haven’t been picked up by the endless mainstream news media coverage.
#1: Specter’s Swap caused the Bay State flop
A casual conversation with a veteran campaign operative brought up an interesting angle to Brown’s victory: that Arlen Specter may have unwittingly delivered this seat to Republican control with his April party switch.
Back in April, Specter’s switch didn’t just make the rallying cry of “The 41st Vote” relevant, it also eliminated the Republican primary between the liberal Specter and conservative Pat Toomey. Remember Toomey had just barely lost a 2004 primary challenge and was poised to overtake Specter in 2010 – if he had the right resources.
If you were a conservative donor somewhere outside of Massachusetts or Pennsylvania, to whom would you donate money if you had to choose: a well-known candidate who had legitimate shot to help return the Senate to its roots, or a long-shot barely-known state senator trying to take Ted Kennedy’s seat? Specter’s swap in April made Brown the best investment when his nine point poll deficit was announced earlier this month.
Who said Arlen Specter never helped the GOP?
#2: Speaking of polling…
Remember how Democrats were roundly criticizing Rasmussen polls for supposedly being skewed in favor of Republicans? Well, it was Rasmussen who first signaled that this race may be closer than the conventional wisdom would suggest it could be.
#3: Jack E. Robinson helped break the “color barrier” for the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation
No, it isn’t THAT Jackie Robinson, and that “color barrier” is, of course, blue. Robinson has been a Republican candidate for multiple state offices since his 2000 challenge of Ted Kennedy, but is considered something of a joke among Massachusetts Republicans. Yet Brown took him at least semi-seriously in their primary match-up.
The contested primary was no contest – Brown won 89% of the vote. But Mike Rossettie, who blogs at RedMassGroup (and used to run the political machine that was the UMass Republican Club) made the point that the primary was an opportunity to campaign, drum up name recognition, and win endorsements and free media.
Jim Eltringham 