Selling Change (Guest Post by Ben Donahower) August 31, 2011

Somewhere between work, classes, and getting myself  going with Progressive Congress News, I managed to wedge in a week at the shore – a very badly needed week. While working turning myself into a saltwater infused sun dried tomato, I got a note that made me very happy: A twitter pal had read my post on politics as marketing, and thought he could add to the topic with some of his own experiences from the campaign trail.

Trust me – when you blog in the wee hours of random odd weeks where you find time, having someone tell you that they actually read your blog is a delight. Having them tell you they’ve put thought into the topic you raised is downright grin-inducing.

Classes are done, all that work email is cleared out – so I’m finally able to catch up here as well. I’m very happy to share this guest post from Ben Donahower. Ben’s got some food for thought. I hope they spark some ideas you can use in your local grassroots activism – because we need a lot more people out there getting comfortable knocking on doors, making signs, showing up at town halls, and putting themselves up as candidates for local office. Wisconsin and Ohio can’t do this alone.

Cheers!

Ben Donahower blogs about campaign yard signs at Campaign Trail Yard Signs and has worked on campaigns from State Representative to President.  You can follow Ben at @iapprovethismsg.

The better we understand marketing the more likely our candidates get elected and our causes get adopted. In fact, the similarities between marketing and campaigns and elections are striking. Campaigns and marketers might use different words but they name the same concepts. Ultimately, marketers and campaigns want people to say yes to their offer. One offers a product or service and the other ideas and representation. Let’s make voters and others an offer they can’t refuse!

To Get An Answer Add Scarcity

 We’ve all seen offers for products and services where the price or the product was only good for a certain time. Act now because the first hundred customers will get this widget for three easy payments of $19.95! Fortunately, politics is a business of deadlines. Campaigns commonly use scarcity is to raise funds before a campaign finance deadline and to persuade undecided voters to make up their minds close to the election. Adding scarcity to your ask for financial support or to vote for the candidate will increase the percentage of people who give a straight answer and the number of people who will say yes. Look for other deadlines and take advantage of them!  If you have an upcoming vote by mail deadline, for example, reach out to people who are likely to vote by mail, share with them the benefits of voting by mail and that the deadline is fast approaching.

It’s Give and Take: In That Order

Robert Cialdini in his book, 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive, shared an experiment where researchers asked a group of homeowners to place a large “drive carefully” sign on their front lawns. Only 17% agreed. The researchers also went to another group of homeowners but instead of asking them to post a sign on their first visit, they were asked to display a small window sign. Now that the researchers had a mental foot in the door, the next time they visited those homeowners, 78% of them agreed to take the large “drive carefully” lawn sign.

The second group of homeowners easily agreed to a small window sign. After they had displayed the sign for some time they identified themselves as the kind of people that cared about whether others drove carefully or not. Since the small window signs helped them self-identify as that type of person, they easily agreed to take the much larger and less attractive yard sign.

This same marketing principle applies to political campaigns whether it’s yard signs, campaign contributions, or something in between.

The Power of Pricing Psychology

Marketers are very strategic in how much they ask for a product. A product price, for example, is $14.95 in a bricks and mortar retail or something like $27 online. Marketers also think about the structure of the price such as the three easy payments of $19.95.

Activists can use the same principles of pricing psychology to make it easier for undecided voters to vote for a candidate. Tell an undecided voter that they aren’t making a lifelong commitment but putting the candidate in office for one term. If they aren’t happy with their representation, their money back guarantee is that they can return the elected official to private life and elect someone else. More people will vote for the candidate because you have framed the ask for a vote in a way that is low cost and guaranteed.

Marketing Works

When we market a candidate or an issue using these ideas and other marketing strategies, we are communicating ideas in a way that are accessible and compelling. We shouldn’t feel sleazy about our efforts unless we are making claims that we can’t deliver on. The reason why we think that marketing is sleazy comes from unethical marketers who make false promises about their products and candidates alike. If we market our issues and candidates ethically, we our doing ourselves and our causes a service.

Matt Bai’s Happy Place May 17, 2011

I’m not supposed to be getting all wound up about politics right now. I’ve been such a good patient taking my antibiotics and Vitamin C and those lovely lovely cough medicines. I’ve been good, I swear. So this isn’t a rant – it’s more like a therapeutic walk in the garden. I’m just bringing some pruning shears with meWe as I perambulate. Because really, it’s just too easy – like deadheading blooms – to thwack at Matt Bai’s NYT post today on the canker infested bush that is Newt Gingrich’s campaign messaging.

Take a short walk with me, will you?

Bai recapped what everyone has already heard about, Gingrich calling POTUS “the food stamp president”, then takes us into the discussions it raised among the assembled pundits both on camera and off camera. You can watch the whole thing here. I’m not going to rehash it. Honestly, it’s just another Sunday in the land where well-nourished people wax philosophical about their own navels. Peggy Noonan’s breathy tale of the green room moment of silence wins the prize in myopic analysis. She can tell you exactly what to think about Newt Gingrich based on what she saw happen 5 feet from her by the fruit tray. Genius wears Patagonia. Whatever… blah blah, have a cream cheese danish.

What Bai does in his follow-up post is use that Sunday chat as a jumping off point for his take on racism in our current political discourse. He may as well, because it’s going to be a running theme for the 2012 campaign season. If this is the start of the debate, it’s going to be a weak and passive one based Matt Bai’s voice in it.

“This is a debate that is likely to surface many more times in the next 18 months, no matter whom the Republicans nominate, and the truth seems to me a little more complex than partisans on either side might suggest.”

No, Matt, it’s not complex. There’s not the tiniest bit of complex to it. Candidates use the pre-planned short sentences that sell to their target voters. Calling Obama the “food-stamp President” is not a deep attempt to unpack our recent economic history and lay out a long-term vision to nudge our domestic marketplace in a direction that engages workers left behind without skills or resources– it’s sticking a big fat whistle to your lips and blowing so the angry middle-aged white guys know where to find you.

But, whatever, it’s complex. Thank heaven we have you to explain the nuances to us. If that’s gonna happen, let’s see where you come from in your understanding of our modern racial politics. Show me your garden of deep understanding:

Is there a racial element to some of the attacks on President Obama? It’s pretty hard to argue there isn’t, when a conservative writer like Dinesh D’Souza argues that Mr. Obama sees the world like an African nationalist (a theory Mr. Gingrich praised again in his interview Sunday), or when Donald J. Trump asserts that Mr. Obama isn’t smart enough to have gotten into Harvard or to have written his own books.

Yes “it’s pretty hard to argue”. Which means  you’re about to try, aren’t ya Matt? You’re gonna look for some complexity! Oh goodie!

But here’s the thing: race and cultural otherness were powerful undercurrents in Republican politics long before the nation’s first black president came along. The infamous Willie Horton ad that George Bush deployed against Michael Dukakis in 1988, you may recall, was more overtly racist than anything Mr. Obama had to parry 20 years later. Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore were all portrayed as being well outside America’s white, Christian mainstream.

But here’s the thing: What the hell is your point? Republican politics has been racist forever, so they aren’t really being racist when they use racist rhetoric against the first black president because it’s not as OVERT? Oookay… but thank you for the reminder of the GOP’s charming history.

Mr. Gingrich’s “food stamp” line is an homage of sorts to Ronald Reagan’s “welfare queens.” This business about turning America into Detroit is exactly the kind of thing Mr. Reagan would have said, if he hadn’t been so busy trying to win Michigan’s electoral votes.

Oh! It was an homage to Reagan. Well that makes it a little more understanda… wait, when Reagan said it, it was RACIST.

So to say that Mr. Obama is being cast as somehow alien to the white American experience simply because he is black really does miss the point. He would still be cast in this way if he were an urban, northern Democrat who happened to be white. The fact that Mr. Obama is black may even blunt the attack to some extent, because Republican challengers have to be more careful in how they raise these kinds of cultural issues than they would with your standard-issue white liberal.

In fact, there are tactical reasons for Republicans to consider scrapping the cultural argument altogether when it comes to Mr. Obama, or at least minimizing it.

I see. It isn’t because the President is black that the GOP and their propaganda machine is using racist rhetoric. It’s because they are just being themselves… Got it. Having a black President actually makes them LESS likely to use racist language and imagery. I should have realized that. I was clearly too busy trying to ignore how the President is really Kenyan, had a black nationalist pastor, invited a rapper (A RAPPER! The Horror!) to poetry night at the White House and really secretly hates white people. I must have missed the fact that those were all toned down and restrained versions of what the GOP would normally unleash if they let their flags really fly. Well how incredibly sensitive of them, and how good of you to seek out the subtle balancing energy that the GOP is putting out there into the world.

Now here comes my favorite part, because it’s just such a dead-on accurate reading of America today:

After all, we have now reached the point where a 45-year-old American voter has no memory of civil rights marches or the silent majority and grew up in a society where overt racism was uniformly stigmatized. [Emphasis mine.] In this new environment, you’re probably not well advised to make racial alienation a centerpiece of your campaign, unless you want to offend half the voting public, including most of the independent voters who decide the outcome of a general election.

We have reached the point where a 45-year old American has no memory of civil right marches or the silent majority? Really? I’m 40 tomorrow. I went to elementary school in an ex-urban district where you knew damn well why you were being bussed across town. I can chart my years at the Jersey Shore on 30 year mileposts from “remember when that family brought the black child to the beach?” to “Well, at least this beach isn’t public.” Are you freaking kidding me? I may have been born after Selma, but I certainly lived through the 2000 GOP primary when calls went out to voters in the South about John McCain’s secret interracial baby. I’m not sure what pretty pretty post-racial world you live in, but the rest of America, we’re still living out here where the racism is. We’re still living in a world where the “Southern Strategy” is a daily method of programming campaign messaging (I’d say GOP campaign messaging, but I’m honest enough to know we’ve got Dems who will use the same methods in the places where they still work). We’re still living in a society where communities are throwing up their hands and re-segregating their schools in full view. Do you need a field trip out into America to find out that there is a good reason Gingrich and the 2012 GOP Presidential dwarves are bringing out “homages” to 1980?

I’m picking a bone with how Matt Bai chose to approach what he witnessed on Sunday, and with his seemingly naive perception of how people outside the Beltway will respond to it. I think what Bai was trying to say is essentially true. The GOP is using rhetoric they have always used, it isn’t just a reflexive response to having a black President, it’s an institutional part of who they are. That rhetoric is a divisive and ultimately a losing strategy, and they should not give in to the impulse to use what won’t work. What is driving me batty about his post is he seems to be going out of his way to take the sting out of this essential truth, couching everything in an explanation that defends the GOP: Yes this is racist rhetoric — BUT it wasn’t really because we have a black president (take THAT left!), BUT it would have been used against whichever Democrat was out there, BUT it’s not OVERT, BUT it’s actually MUTED, BUT in my pundit wisdom I’m telling them it’s a bad idea to go down that road, BUT BUT BUT.

So this is how we’re gonna play the pundit game? Tell us the racism is there, then bury it in so much “context”  we forget what the whole point was? It’s okay to just say it Matt — Gingrich used racist rhetoric that he consciously chose to attract the voters he wants to win the Primary. Those voters aren’t a big enough group to win the Presidency for him. See how simple that is?

Yes, I know, it sucks you are going to spend the next year having to explain racist crap from a band of GOP nominees and their supporting media that is both a losing strategy and demeans our society as it happens. You know, you could actually tell them that NOW and maybe move our political discourse in a new direction – or you could just save all of that brilliant truth for your post 2012 election book. You will say, “I saw it unfolding for the GOP starting in Spring with Newt Gingrich’s launch interviews…” and I will say, “But you did nothing about it, even though you had a prime space to make a difference.” Prove me wrong.

Yes, We Really Are. January 21, 2011

I forgot to believe it for a little while.

I’ve been riding out the past 2 months since the midterms on a wave of exhaustion. The next two years have been filling me with visions of slamming my head on a brick wall, battling just to hold onto the little patch of ground we’ve taken. Then, Tucson. I have literally sat on my hands for days trying not to say too much, or get too angry, or, worse, hope for something good to come out of this – because I’ve hoped before.

But – something has been happening. It started small and has built up, bit by bit. We really are having the conversations I hoped we would. The President really did give the speech he needed to in Tucson last week – the one a President is supposed to give. One by one, the media did turn from the initial breathless stories about specific quotes and web graphics to the more important discussions that needed to be had about mental health care, guns in America, and the tone of our political discourse. Some for just a little while, but many for much longer than I really expected.

That this Monday was America’s day to remember and honor the life of Dr. King seems even more of a blessing than usual this year. It came just at the moment when we most needed think about his words, his work, and the movement that he gave spirit to. We needed a day of reflection as much as we have needed it in a very long time.

We’ve had blessings these past two weeks. We needed the pictures of Gabby and Mark holding hands in the hospital. We needed to see the faces of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Nancy Pelosi as they spoke of seeing Gabby open her eyes. We needed to hear that the amazing Representative Gabrielle Giffords is outdoing even the most optimistic predictions for her recovery. It’s helping all of us.

For once, I am grateful for polls – yes I said that, polls. They are telling us something that we have also needed to hear: The American people have seen the anger and heard the yelling, they’ve given everyone a chance to make their case, and they’ve had enough of it. Right now, they don’t want another self-serving bit of it from anyone.

Senators of different parties are planning to sit with each other at the State of the Union. I know, it’s tiny. It’s meaningless in the grand scheme. It’s a throwaway gesture. It doesn’t change anything. And yet… it has never happened before. It has the opportunity to be the first time the cameras pan the gallery without us taking bets on which phrase tilts the room to the left or right. It certainly wouldn’t be a game-changer. But it’d be nice.

Once I start letting small, hopeful thoughts in, bigger ones started to pop open:

The House Republicans took their vote yesterday to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act. They had their moment to give their closing statement on why it was wrong bad terrible horrible. But it is still the law of the land today. In two years it will still be the law of the land, and more of its benefits will be understood and appreciated by the people it was meant to help. We may nibble at provisions and amendments and funding aspects, but we will not be going back to square one, not ever.

The Mighty Duck Congress of December really did repeal DADT. After 17 years, it is on its way into the history books. And we will not be going back on that one, either. We will, in fact, be going forward – we will have Equal Marriage in this country. The changing opinions of Americans on gay rights have been tracked, and they are shifting exponentially now. It is not a matter of whether, but when.

Those things happened. In spite of our economic turmoil, in spite of two wars, in spite of a media juggernaut that is hell-bent on convincing us that we are standing on the precipice of disaster or civil war at every moment, we have moved forward.

The State of Union is coming up. The media is starting to talk about shifts in poll numbers for the President. The American people are showing positive reaction to people doing the right things – like working with each other – and turning away from people doing the wrong things – like making it all about themselves. Something is actually sneaking past the pundits and political gimmicks, it’s the sound of rational people talking to each other.

And if that’s not enough for you – pitchers and catchers report on February 13th.

So when I look at the calendar today, and I remember that 2 years ago I was out there in the cold for a purpose, I can say tonight what I was much too down recently to say. We really are doing fine. We’re getting through the hard stuff, and we have done a whole lot of things that our kids are going to one day think were so obviously right.

Yes, we have challenges.  Some are big, hairy, ugly deals like Afghanistan, closing Gitmo, getting more jobs created faster, fixing our educational inequities, and the pernicious role of corporate money in our political system. But we’ve got a lot of good people out there trying to get something done. And we are only 2 years into our opportunity to be the kind of citizens and leaders that we wanted to be. We’re in this for the long haul. And we ARE making a difference.

For the record: Non-spiracy Theories October 10, 2010

This has been a wacky week. I’ve been sitting on most of what I had to say. Didn’t want to make it worse. But now that Gawker has done their story, I’m feeling a little more able to talk about it because when I say how bizarre it all was, people will actually understand a little.  I do think there are a couple of lessons in it worth remembering.

It goes like this:

On Thursday after a long day of work and school, I came home to find that someone had posted a YouTube video in which I had a bit role. I’m not going to embed the video here, or even link to it. It is 13 minutes long, with godawful music and tells a sordid tale about a vast conspiracy of Twitter accounts, funded by the Democrats (of course!), on a quest to destroy the Tea Party through, apparently, middle-school potty humor. In weaving their web of connections, like CSI: Camp Wallawoo,  the video makers grabbed screenshots of anyone they even remotely thought involved.

And so I got to see my own mug and phone number somewhere 12 or 13 minutes into the slide show.

Like a whole lot of other people who found themselves in the video, my first reaction was What The…? Then it was laughter at the absurdity. Then a wee bit of concern at the idea of having to warn my hubby in case we got hate mail or phone calls (he took it in stride). I basically made jokes about it and told the other baffled parties not to worry too much, we might get some nasty tweets but it’ll blow over, they’ll move on when they realize there’s no there there.

Gawker made it all a lot better this morning by running their story explaining some of the mystery – like who the cussing, obnoxious Twitter accounts were that had created much of the drama. And within hours, things melted into a ridiculous tale of grown men who have way too much time on their hands.

But here’s the thing — this story, even before the video made it more colorful, included some behaviors that folks haven’t seen if they’ve only seen the video and the Gawker article. There were blog posts well before then that attacked some good people. Two friends were essentially harassed day after day for weeks by people who sought to embarrass them, destroy their business, and hurt Democratic candidates. That was decidedly not so funny.

I don’t do conspiracy theories. I don’t extrapolate this into a big coordinated effort by Tea Party members to tie up progressive activists in a circus during the month before the election (I’m sure some will). I think the simplest explanation is usually the right one. A small group of people who felt harassed and abused on Twitter (and by the way, they clearly were to some extent, just not by the people they thought) then convinced themselves and each other that something more sinister was afoot. I understand how powerless they must have felt, having someone harangue them with disgusting messages. Somewhere amidst the social isolation and access to way too much information on the intertubes (like a hypochondriac having access to Web MD) they cobbled together a story bigger than gravity can hold together.

So that’s the gist of the tale. And here’s what I want to say from my perspective – I earned that right when they included me in their little video:

- It is not okay for people to harass others. Period. I don’t care what political, religious, national, or sports team loyalties one has. Get a life.

- I and many mentioned in that video were completely uninvolved in anything. We weren’t participants in or even cheerleaders for any of the obnoxious behaviors that either did or were alleged to have taken place. We literally had no idea what all that insanity was.

- If you do receive a link to a big shocking story, consider the source. A couple of well-known right wing personalities – Andrew Breitbart, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck’s The Blaze website posted the video and related information without even a thought. Even if parts of it had any truth to them, a big chunk of it was provably untrue and involved completely provably innocent parties. I’m willing to bet that the left has had a few of those kinds of stories as well, so I’ll call it a draw for today, and we’ll see who keeps doing it.

So here’s the good news: For all the bluster and “We Are The Mob” mentality out there in the world, even though I was braced for a lot of really nasty tweets, calls, whatever – I got almost none. I got a couple of tweets and even those were pretty mild. I got not one phone call. From that I take a bit of comfort in the fact that even the folks who re-tweeted and chorused and trumpeted the story are generally too busy or lazy to actually do much.

And now I get to go back to my real life.