Fiscal conservatives are sheep. Some are demon sheep.

Carly Fiorina’s Senate campaign gets points for creativity – releasing a web video to make a detailed case against her primary opponent, Tom Campbell, that just couldn’t be made in a thirty second ad.  But whoever cut and approved this ad has done more harm than good:

Likening conservative primary voters to sheep is a bad idea on its own, but Fiorina’s folks take it a step farther with the “demon sheep” at the very end.  It’s funny, but in a so-bad-it’s-funny kind of way, which is a bad thing for a political ad in a charged primary.

Sure enough, the parodies have begun almost instantly, and they have been thorough.  You can follow the Demon Sheep on Twitter (@DemonSheep) and ask questions of the unholy beast.  Campbell is using the ad as fund raising fodder, and it has likely helped his name recognition among prospective non-California donors.

More important, the ad – and not the message the ad was trying to convey – is the subject of discussion and media coverage, some of it quite tongue-in-cheek.

Text donations to…

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.

The Obama Triangle?

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:

  • In 2009, President Obama campaigned in New Jersey for incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine and in Virginia for Democrat Creigh Deeds.  Both tied their campaigns to the successful 2008 Obama campaign in varying degrees; both lost.
  • In 2010, the President entered the Bay State to give Democrat Martha Coakley a boost in what was, according to the polls at the time, a dead heat.  We know how that turned out.

All politics are local…

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.

Untold Tales of Massachusetts

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.

CoCo and the Online Campaign

New England hasn’t seen an upset like Scott Brown’s win since Superbowl 42 – and much of the credit deservedly goes to his campaign’s ability to harness support from Republicans across the country through online organizing and remote phone banks. Compare that to the other online campaign making news lately: the “I’m with CoCo” movement supporting deposed Tonight Show host Conan O’Brien.

While O’Brien cleverly positioned himself to the People of Earth, the online effort to build support has not been effective – even though it has translated to angry mobs descending on NBC affiliates calling on O’Brien to keep his current gig.  The shortcoming?  The online movement – which appears largely viewer-generated – isn’t focusing on activities which will affect NBC’s bottom line.

Scott Brown’s online efforts were all geared to mobilize voters and volunteers who could drive more voters to the polls.  Outside of fraud and cheating, winning more voters is the easiest way to win an election.

NBC counts votes in two ways: ratings and, more importantly, advertising dollars.  A more effective CoCo Movement might target Tonight Show advertisers, warning them of boycotts.  A well-publicized action against a current Jay Leno sponsor might be a good shot across the bow.

Johnny Carson’s old chair is not “The People’s Seat.”  Rallies and large Facebook groups may snag short-term media attention, but NBC feels like they can win more “votes” with Jay Leno behind the Tonight Show desk and until the CoCo movement translates into viewers and dollars, nothing will dissuade them.

And now, the lovely Massachus-ettes!

From the cradle of the American Revolution comes the news that Scott Brown raised $1.3 million in the last 24 hours (in response to a money bomb request) while his Democratic opponent misspelled “Massachusetts” in her TV ads.

Giddy with the good news, Republicans may be setting themselves up for a big disappointment in next week’s special election to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s seat – and if expectations are not managed,that could affect the media chatter on cable news over the next several months.

Though the idea of a red flag rising up in a blue state is appealing, Republicans must remember that this is an “against-the-spread” race – so a margin of defeat within 5-7 percentage points is as good as a win.  And followers of national political trends shouldn’t assume a state’s voters will see things the same way.

After all – the Kennedys weren’t a legacy at Harvard because they could spell.

The Left’s tea party

The left in American politics loves to claim the somewhat disorganized, unpolished Tea Party movement amounts to a hostile takeover of the GOP by fringe lunatics.  But to better understand the unrest that gave rise to the Tea Partiers on the right, one might look at what TechPresident called “The Obama Disconnect.”

When the Obama campaign of 2008 became the Obama government of 2009, it meant moving away from theoretical campaign promises and into the process of regulating and legislating.  Meanwhile, the famed campaign apparatus – including the 13 million strong database and the online infrastructure – became “Organizing for America,” or OFA

Now, activists are frustrated with OFA.  TechPresident chronicled the plight of Marta Evry, an Obama campaign worker who remained active after the election.  Evry is disappointed in the Administration’s efforts to pass a health care bill despite losses on key provisions for liberal ideology – points such as a public option and expanding abortion services.

It’s much the same energy that conservative activists have right now.  And just as Tea Party-inspired excitement does not necessarily translate to blind support for Republicans, left wing disillusionment with Democrat incumbents will soften their prospects in 2010.