For those keeping track of the post-Obama election debate about the use of technology within the GOP, this Patrick Ruffini post is a must read.
The idea of accountability for achieving desired metrics is common in both parties. The most successful campaigns in recent memory - Bush/Cheney '04 and Obama/Biden '08 - were zealots about setting goals and holding people in the field to them.
Also, Ruffini isn't shy about touching on some hard truths:
Right now, I am less confident that consultants at the state and local level -- who are usually themselves at least 10 years removed from their formative campaign and thus working off yesterday's technology -- will "get it." Many of these consultants have never known a media mix that isn't 80% TV, or are path-dependent on mail and phones. To the extent they engage online, it's in hiring a low-level blogger to handle the Internets for them -- and paying zero attention to it themselves.It's all well and good to suggest we'll simply train these folks. In many ways, there are financial incentives against "getting it" -- namely hefty commissions for TV and mail. It won't be as easy as just explaining the benefits of new media. We face powerful obstacles to change.
Instead, we need to rely on a carrot and stick approach. Yes, train the operatives at the local level -- especially the staff who are younger and more willing to change. But also impose hard metrics on new media recruitment the same way we already do for offline volunteer recruitment, doors knocked on, and volunteer calls made.
I don't think that's intended to be a knock on current consultants and senior campaign staffers as an honest discussion of reality. In this case, it's a reality that must be confronted and addressed.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 16, 2009 10:47 AM | Email ThisI read this Patrick Ruffini article early this morning (he had linked to it on Facebook) and sent him the following message:
"Excellent ideas and goals, especially when subordinated to principled conservatism - lower taxes, sharply reduced spending, free market solutions, constitutional principles, smaller government and increased liberty, tough border security and no amnesty for illegal immigrants, pro-life and pro-marriage policies, patriotism, strong military, and ... Read Morevictory over Islamic fascism. Obama's campaign lies are starting to unravel - a principled conservative movement can make a big difference in the challenges and battles ahead, and in the 2010 and 2012 elections."
Posted by: Steve Beren on February 16, 2009 02:26 PMI don't see it available online yet, but I highly recommend it. When it becomes available online, please link to it on SoundPolitics.
Also - sorry for the typo in my previous message. My note to Patrick read:
"Excellent ideas and goals, especially when subordinated to principled conservatism - lower taxes, sharply reduced spending, free market solutions, constitutional principles, smaller government and increased liberty, tough border security and no amnesty for illegal immigrants, pro-life and pro-marriage policies, patriotism, strong military, and victory over Islamic fascism. Obama's campaign lies are starting to unravel - a principled conservative movement can make a big difference in the challenges and battles ahead, and in the 2010 and 2012 elections."
Posted by: Steve Beren on February 16, 2009 02:32 PMIt's not about technology. It's about performance.
That's true. Most of what is being discussed about technology is irrelevant. It is important to use the Internet and other technologies to get your message out, but most campaigns nad parties are doing that. Compelling and informative web sites, video, newsletters, and so on are important, but it's not much different than how both parties have done it all along, just a different form.
As long as they don't fall prey to the silliness that social networking is going to help out campaigns ...
The Republicons have performed like traitors, bent on destroying America, and are now paying the price.
For every example you come up with, I can give two examples from the Democrats. Yawn.
To make my point. Please name one thing the GOP stands "for" and has stood for in the past without fail, that has been good for our country. You can't.
Of course we can. Strong national defense, tax cuts, small government, less regulation, free trade, civil rights for minorities, property rights, gun rights, freedom of education ... the list is very long.
But let me tell you that I would be a rich man if I had a dollar for every time a client balked at a new idea.
Here's how the conversation goes:
"Old Senator Jones has won four campaigns in sixteen years and he tells me the way to win is A, B & C."
Yes, we have consultants who lack a creative edge. But more commonly we have candidates who lack the killer instinct. They are too often paralyzed with fear so don't take any risks.
Also, it's not entirely fair to say that consultants in Washington State are responsible for the decline of our GOP numbers in Olympia. While I am in no way anxious to come to the professional defense of my competitors :) I must still suggest that the political environment at the macro level has been more responsible for the sad state of affairs locally than anything else.
That said, I will admit, even in a bad election year for us that superior strategy, tactics and messaging can win.
Rep. Mike Hope won in a district that voted 69% for Obama. Steve Litzow almost won in a district that voted 72% for Obama. In fact, every competetive legislative victor had to win over Obama voters to win last year.
Statewide, the House Republicans actually bested the Democrats, picking off most of the competetive open seats and even taking out two incumbents.
The difference was every one of those victors was young, vibrant and unafraid of trying new tactics.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 16, 2009 04:41 PMThen, actions didn't match words and they were thrown out.
A good list, absent measurable results, stays just a list.
Lower taxes and spending - did the lower tax thing (albeit without fixing the alternative minimum tax once and for all) but didn't lower spending at all. In fact, the prescription drug entitlement enacted under the republican watch is another HUGE increase in both uncontrolled government spending and government meddling in the free market.
Did your liberty increase over the last decade? Not sure mine did.
Secure borders - did that happen? Illegal alien solution - did that happen?
Strong defense - our Navy is smaller now than since what, pre-WWI, Airforce flies a lot of planes older than their pilots - did our defense strengthen in the last decade?
Patriotism? What's that mean exactly? Are we unpatriotic when we criticize the President for example?
Presumably we can take a few States with strong republican leadership and show how these principles have guided solutions and governance and prove the folly of electing democrats.
Which ones do you suggest?
I have always been amused at the GOP's ability to become what the "other side" is doing at all costs. "Don't say that, that message is too strong, we don't want to endorse a candidate too early, we like to lose and we'll fight to the death to reserve that right". Republicans have become weak kneed and powerless because they are unwilling to make the hard stands. The problem still lies on the "old guard" that is unwilling to let those of us in the 25-35 year old set (the ones too young to remember much about the Reagan years, and a lot of us voted for the first time for the Bush 2001 election). Let us try running it for a round. Especially in the Soviet Socialist of Washington. What do we have to lose?? Governor, check. Senate seats, check. US House majority, check. White House electoral college votes, check. King County, check. Change (liberal) has come because the old guard (GOP) isn't listening. I'm still waiting my turn to take charge of this mess, but the old guard has white knuckles locked around the jugular of the Republican Party, cutting off oxygenation to the brain. I love Sound Politics.
Posted by: PatrickPlumb on February 17, 2009 10:25 AMLet's take a look at the scorecard in top legislative races for the last two cycles.
In 2006, Senate Republicans lost 6 seats, and House Republicans lost 5 seats. Here are the consultants in each of the races we lost:
Senate - wins
6 - Dave Mortenson
26 (open) - Stan Shore
44 - Dave Mortenson
45 (open)- Stan Shore
47 (open)- Stan Shore
48 - Brett Bader
House - losses
6 - Chad Minnick
24 - ??
28 (open)- Dave Mortenson
31 - Dave Mortenson
45 (open) - Chad Minnick
In 2008, Senate Republicans picked up one seat. House Republicans lost two seats, but picked up three others.
Senate - wins
2 - Stan Shore
House - losses
6 - Chuck Adams
41 (open) - John Peschong
House - wins
6 - Ward Baker
26 (open) - Chad Minnick
44 - Chad Minnick
One thing is clear from this: Dave Mortenson should be permanently banned from the consulting world. My understanding is that he has retired after 2008. Let's hope that's the case.
Posted by: Rick on February 18, 2009 09:36 AMWe didn't do the 6th in 2006 except for two direct mail pieces three weeks before the election.
Usually we like to be a part of the team from early on to assist with campaign messaging for the entire campaign before we take any credit.
But we often don't get involved early enough. Too many times a candidate feels they can figure it out themselves...or they think they are safe so they don't need outside help.
Then consultants get called in late in the game when a poll shows the candidate is in trouble and it is obvious what the local yokels had been doing wasn't working. Sometimes we can successfully turn things around and sometimes we can't.
But I wouldn't blame many of those 2006 losses to either the consultants or the candidates. The 48th District, for example, had a great candidate who did what he needed to do and worked hard enough to win. But the winds of change were blowing and there was nothing anyone could do on election day 2006.
We lost a lot of good men that day. :)
I still maintain that we should spend more time and resources as a party at the macro level than the micro level. Sure, getting candidates to understand the basic concepts of marketing is important. But these down-ticket races are always hindered by top-of-the-ticket drag. The more we can reduce that drag, the easier it will be to pick up seats in our state legislature.
I realize that suggestion might take money out of the races where guys like me earn our living, but after ten years of doing this I'm getting sick and tired of losing when we don't have to.
I'm getting tired of losing campaigns where we are comfortably ahead, but those infrequent voters show up in droves with only one thought in mind: vote AGAINST Republicans.
Give those voters a reason to pause and take a second look at our down-ticket races and we'll win a LOT more of them.
Individual candidates can sometimes do this on their own, but more often than not they are simply tossed out with the dirty laundry by uninformed voters who have refused to engage until the very last minute and don't see Republicans as being relevant to what they care about.
That's a macro problem that no legislative candidate or consultant can really solve.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 18, 2009 12:08 PM