Watching assorted campaigns unfold over the last several election cycles I've noticed too many campaigns don't fully grasp the new dynamics of mail-in elections, or elections heavily dominated by "absentee" balloting. This applies particularly to races without a major presence on TV and radio. Simply put, campaigns are too Election Day-centric and are missing how soon voters are casting ballots in large numbers.

The proper response is to have more voter contacts, primarily direct mail, earlier in the voting period, not just concentrated in the last week before Election Day. Ballots - excluding out-of-state absentees - are sent out just short of three weeks prior to Election Day. Some voters, especially reliable older voters, start voting right away. Without a strategy reflecting that trend, campaigns aren't fighting hard enough for precious votes.

Let me use one recent race in Edmonds between DJ Wilson - who I endorsed - and Adrienne Fraley-Monillas for a slit on the City Council to illustrate the issue. Since it was an open-seat contest between two reasonably well-funded and qualified candidates (at least in the eyes of the voters), fought entirely via mail-in ballots, it offers a great case study. The results of the race show the clear correlation between Wilson's earlier, direct mail voter contacts and his related comparative success in early balloting.

Rather than just doorbelling over the summer months, Wilson pursued a strategy I know is also favored by Executive Director of the state GOP, Jeremy Deutsch: precede the doorbelling of a precinct by sending a note in the mail from the candidate. Then doorbell the precinct so the voter either sees the candidate at the door or the brochure left at the doorstep. And then follow-up with a postcard from the candidate after the precinct has been doorbelled. The tried-and-true act of doorbelling thus becomes a multi-layered opportunity for voter contact and message communication.

In the week before ballots arrived in the mail, Wilson also sent a couple thousand "neighbor-to-neighbor" letters, where neighbors sign a letter paid for by the campaign, explaining why they're supporting the candidate. In a race that totaled less than 13,500 votes, a couple thousand households - targeted to the likeliest of voters - is a nice universe.

Thus, even before ballots hit mailboxes, Wilson was ahead in voter contacts. Here's how the direct mail unfolded from there:

1) Wilson piece #1 and Fraley-Monillas piece #1, both positive and both the most content heavy of the campaign, arrive in mailboxes with the ballots, which arrived on a Friday and Saturday, 10/19 & 10/20.

2) Wilson piece #2, a simple "chase" piece emphasizing one issue (Wilson's vision) arrives the following Monday, 10/22.

3) Wilson piece #3, a moderately hard hitting "contrast" piece between the two candidates hits on Wednesday, 10/24.

4) Fraley-Monillas piece #2, also a moderately hard hitting "contrast" piece arrives in mail boxes on 10/25, the day after Wilson's.

5) Fraley-Monillas piece #3, an aggressive attack piece, hitting Wilson on the building heights issues regarding which some Edmonds candidates like to demagogue, doesn't hit mailboxes until 10/31.

6) Wilson piece #4, a positive, closing "chase" piece highlighting the endorsement of Edmonds Mayor Gary Haaekenson, hits mailboxes the day after Fraley-Monillas's attack piece.

7) Fraley-Monillas piece #4, a positive closing piece featuring endorsement quotes from assorted community leaders, finally reaches voters on Saturday, 11/3.

Also worth mentioning is that Wilson's mail was substantively better than his opponent's, and I say that objectively regardless of my candidate preference. With the exception of Fraley-Monillas's attack piece the last week of the campaign, Wilson's mail was more visually appealing and did a better job of dual messaging: highlighted messages for the quick reader to notice, coupled with more detailed content for more interested readers. Her mail was ok, but had way too much small print to grab the eye of the less-than-highly interested reader. I'd give his mail a grade of an A-, hers a B (mostly on the strength of the attack piece). Consequently, aside from the varied timing, the volume and content of the direct mail between the campaigns was at least competitive.

What were the results?

Wilson killed her in the early voting. The first count on election night was:

Wilson - 3,706 (55.61%)

Fraley-Monillas - 2,944 (44.18%)

That 11+% lead with nearly half the ballots in the entire race counted meant the race was virtually over, thanks to the strength of Wilson's early mail.

In contrast, the remaining ballots broke differently as Fraley-Monillas caught up in voter contacts. Here's the breakdown of the remaining ballots after that first count:

Wilson - 3,491 (51.38%)

Fraley-Monillas - 3,291 (48.38%)

The 11+% gap shrunk to a much smaller 3% margin in the subsequent ballot counts. Fraley-Monillas even won a couple of ballot tallies in the days after November 6th. But Wilson's lead, on the strength of his early voter contacts, was so strong the final tally was:

Wilson - 7,197 (53.45%)

Fraley-Monillas - 6,235 (46.30%)

Yes, it's just one race and each campaign has its own multiplicity of variables. But this down ballot race is a great example of the impact of early mail and voter contacts in the era of mail-in balloting. Waiting until the week before Election Day to unleash critical mail in a competitive race should now be considered a losing proposition.