Should The 2018 Midterms Just Be A Referendum On Trump? Or Do Democrats Have To Be Offering A Viable Alternative?

You thought the SNL sketch was funny? David Wade a former John Kerry chief of staff, now makes his living as a lobbyist (GreenLight Strategies) and Democratic strategist; über--establishment. He says Democrats can win back Congress next year "by making Donald Trump the issue in [suburban] districts. You can't allow any Republican incumbent to separate themselves from Trump's brand, period. Whether it's his failed promises, or his inability to do anything for the suburbs on basic quality of life issues from middle class taxes to health care costs to wages, you need to draw a straight line from the Republican incumbent to Trump."

Although Wade acknowledges that "Having acceptable candidates who fit their districts is important," he insists that Democrats "not pretend this is going to be anything but a referendum on Donald Trump. Ralph Northam didn’t just win out of abundance of charisma or because he had a vision. He won because Donald Trump was a millstone around Gillespie’s neck and Northam himself was acceptable to voters. We can’t be afraid to do that everywhere because with a president whose approval ratings are at a historic low, that’s how you win."

I asked Nancy Pelosi's daughter Christine, a savvy political operative in her own right, if she sees 2018 shaping up the same way. "I don't believe that," she told me. "I do believe this: Democrats win by showing voters how Trump's tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and big corporations slash Medicare, Medicaid, and education and cause harm in the daily lives of the American people." I asked a couple dozen Democrats the same question-- incumbents, candidates, campaign staffers, former members of Congress, etc. Each one said they disagree with Wade. One top Senate staffer, who asked for anonymity, told me that Schumer's pick of Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona shows that top Dems "still don't get it" and they think the wave will sweep even the worst Republican-lite candidates into office. "That worked out badly for us last year... [but] these know-it-alls never can't seem to admit their mistakes and therefore can't learn from them."

David Keith, currently residing in Racine and running Randy Bryce's camapign, is one of the most in-demand managers in the country. "What's fundamentally wrong about this line of thinking," he offered, "is that it takes voters for granted. It assumes voters don't have a soul, conscience, or values. This line of Beltway thinking goes part and parcel with the strategic flaws of 2016. We owe it to our better history to make something of this moment rather than use it as a moment to default. Voters are now-- more than ever-- very adept at calling bullshit. They may be calling Trump an irresponsible maniac now, but real soon they'll be looking for a remedy. Doing nothing is no remedy. It's a cause for an eye roll."

Tim Canova is working hard to unseat one of the evil forces propelling the Democratic Party in all the wrong directions, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. He has seen very clearly what happens when the party gives up its role as the vehicle for the legitimate aspirations of working men and women. "The surge of Democratic victories in last week’s elections shows what’s possible when candidates and voters organize around the issues and rally around a progressive agenda. We should be skeptical of claims by the Democratic establishment that the party can win back Congress by simply making 2018 a referendum on Donald Trump. They've been wrong so often in the past that we should question their assumptions, as well as their motives. The 'Trump referendum' strategy would serve the interests of the party’s corporate backers since, win or lose, it will have ensured a negative campaign that ignores progressive policy alternatives. The way back for Democrats is to embrace the party’s progressive roots to offer a compelling vision for our country. That’s what Philip Murphy did in winning the governor’s race in New Jersey, he campaigned for a state-run bank as part of his call to reject outdated economic ways and embrace innovative approaches. Yes, it’s important to oppose Trump and his regressive agenda. But at the same time, Democrats must offer voters real progressive alternatives."

Yesterday, Derrick Crowe, the top candidate for the open TX-21 seat, made a similar point. The primary pits him against a conservative "ex"-Republican multimillionaire, Joseph Kopser. On Saturday Bexar County (San Antonio) Democrats held their primary straw poll and Crowe beat Kopser better than 2 to 1. Saturday he told us that he had spent all day Friday in the heart of Texas Hill Country, "talking to voters about progressive policies like a $15/hour minimum wage and Medicare for All. Democrats and progressives respond to that message everywhere we go. Stating the obvious: this is a midterm, and midterms are about exciting, organizing, and turning out the base. Centrism crashes and burns this year. Progressive messages will be the winners."

Kara Eastman is running against the ultimate DCCC candidate-- a failed Republican politician, EXTREMELY conservative, who switched party registration and pretends to be a Blue Dog Democrat now, Brad Ashford, the perennial flip-flopper. He managed to fake his way into the Omaha congressional seat but was the worst Democrat in Congress, always voting with his Republicans brothers on every important issue. He lost his seat last year because Democrats refused to vote for him again. He just got fired from the job he took after that and decided he might as well run again. Kara is running on a progressive-populist platform. "People in districts like the Nebraska's 2nd," she told us, "are not interested in hearing what candidates are running against. They want and deserve to hear who candidates are, what they have accomplished and what they will do for their constituents."

Sam Jammal is taking on Ed Royce-- if he can get by the 4 self-funding multimillionaires running as Democrats in his Orange County district. "Trump," he told us, "is on the top of everyone's mind-- he is dangerous and impossible to ignore. But what he does is create an opening for voters to look at their options. We still need to give voters a reason to hire us. The voter's decision won't solely be about firing the incumbent-- most of them are too entrenched to just be fired because of Trump. We need to be careful to look at the election as a hiring-- not firing decision. Trump creates the environment for change, but won't drive it without quality candidates and a message that resonates." The DCCC prefers someone else-- Gil Cisneros, an ex-potato chip taster for Frito-Lay's who won $266 million in the lottery and is spreading it around among Democrats who agree to endorse him. Cisneros lives in a $10 million beachfront mansion in another district-- CA-39 has no beachfronts-- and has shown himself to know absolutely nothing about any of the issues people care about. And, of course, he's another "ex"-Republican the DCCC always gravitates to.

Patrick Hope is a Virginia state legislator and he is more in agreement with Wade than anyone else I spoke with. He reminded us that "Democrats across the country should take notice of what happened last week in Virginia. Voters are angry about the hateful and divisive policies coming out of the Trump White House and they are directing that anger squarely at Republicans. Many Virginia Republicans tried unsuccessfully to separate themselves from the failed promises of Trump or the divisiveness of Washington but they couldn’t escape the comparison. They could run but they couldn’t hide from the fact that Trump is the Republican Party. This will be even more pronounced in the 2018 mid-terms and is the secret formula to a Democratic victory and their retaking of the House of Representatives."

I also spoke with Andy Millard, a North Carolina Democrat who ran for Congress in a red district and didn't win. He watched that same Saturday Night Live skit last night and mentioned that all the Democrats in it "looked tired and old. The Nancy Pelosi character slowly intones, 'We won because you love our fresh, new ideas delivered by fresh, new faces.' The irony was what made it funny. I agree that candidates should pin Trump to incumbent Republicans, but I think we’ll need a lot more to win back the House. We have to demonstrate that we can lead in a new direction. Trump’s win should have shown us that Americans want something different, so much so that some are willing to roll the dice to get it. We’re not going to win by getting the band back together. I’ve met some great candidates as I plan the conference, and each one has to create their own positive brand and message independent of the national figureheads. I think that’s what it’s going to take."

Brad Miller was the last great Member of Congress from North Carolina. The Republican legislature used partisan gerrymandering to erase his district. This morning he told us that "Most of establishment-wing Democrats argue that all we have to do in 2018 is ride the wave of revulsion for Trump because that’s all they want to do. They think the pre-Trump status quo was perfectly satisfactory, and Trump voters already regret their vote. The permanent Democratic establishment thinks they'll just restore that status quo if a suitable Democratic is elected president in 2020 and everything will be fine. They graciously will not demand a formal apology from the American people for how ungrateful and disrespectful we have been to them." And Brad was just getting started:

Democrats may in fact not have to do much more than not have "R” by their name to do well in 2018. But if Democrats are just the party of the old status quo, then things might not go well for Democrats after that. And the battle lines of American politics will remain the same: two tribal parties that are both okay with corrupt oligarchy but fight the latest culture war in every election.

I don’t want to minimize the real harm that Trump and his appointees are doing, but it would be much worse if he were even minimally competent. We might face a version of Trump who is not a petulant, clownish dumbass, and that is truly scary. Pence could be a plausible celebrity spokesman for a Trumpist Republican Party and government as early as 2020, and maybe even before. A Democratic Party that promises just to restore the status quo of the last generation might struggle against that.

This whole debate reminds me of the discussions I read on North Carolina basketball fan websites. Should we go with our traditional lineup of big men in the paint, or with a smaller but quicker lineup? In basketball, I want to go with what wins, and I’ll leave that decision to our coach. I see no intrinsic virtue of a lineup with two bigs, two wings and a point if something else works better. Just win. Don’t cheat, play within the rules, but win.

I think Democrats can win in 2018 and beyond as the party of economic reform, but that’s not why I’m for those policies. I support structural economic reform because that’s what I think the country needs. Badly. Our economy needs to be dewormed. I want someone to attack the injustice and dysfunction in our economy, and the corrupting concentration of economic and political power, and Democrats still seem like the best bet. Yes, I think Democrats will be rewarded by voters if they do, but I want that for it’s own sake.

Our candidates might not have to wring their hands over how to seem “authentic” if they actually believed what they said and acted on their beliefs in office. Why do voters think so many candidates are empty careerists? Because so many are.

I want to close this out with comments from two of the savviest political leaders I know, California activist Norman Solomon and former-- and future-- Florida Congressman Alan Grayson. Alan was as succinct as Norman was thorough. He told us that "Donald Trump’s old reality show was called The Apprentice.  His 2018 reality show will be called The Biggest Loser." Norman went on for some length-- but important stuff:

Overall, this kind of approach-- prioritizing a quest for supposedly “persuadable” suburban GOP voters-- has proven to be a failure. That’s a big reason why Trump got elected. We should not forget that Chuck Schumer was expressing the conventional Democratic Party wisdom when he said in July 2016: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia. And you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

As the Autopsy points out, “Schumer’s boast demands scrutiny not just because of the disastrous results in three of those four states, but because of the people it overlooked. It illustrated a fundamental assumption underpinning Democratic voter outreach: that to defeat Trump, the party could depend on white suburban voters and give short shrift to working-class voters-- including the voters of color who form 46 percent of the party’s base. This badly flawed assumption went much deeper than an offhand remark by a leading Democrat. The Democratic spending in the 2016 election focused enormous resources on white voters to the relative neglect of people of color.”

That neglect had devastating effects. The drop-off in votes for the Democratic ticket among people of color included a 5 percent plunge among Latino voters for Clinton compared to Obama’s total four years earlier-- despite the fact that Clinton was running against a virulently anti-Latino candidate who labeled Mexican immigrants “rapists” and all the rest of it.

Yet the repetition compulsion of largely targeting white “moderate” suburban voters still festers at the top of the Democratic Party. It fits in neatly with the persistent illusion-- fondly and disastrously embraced in 2016-- that Trump will defeat himself and Democrats need to mainly help him do that by continually hammering on how horrendous he is.

But that’s not how you get a very big turnout from the Democratic Party base-- and a very big turnout from that base is absolutely crucial if we’re going to take back Congress and then the White House. As Jim Hightower put it a few days ago, "Voter turnout is based on voter turn-on-- so, rather than stale robo-calls, let's give to working class people of different backgrounds a slate of progressive candidates and proposals that make them want to elect Democrats."

A lot more than just tactical differences is going on here. There’s a vision for the future behind many of the claims that the next election must be almost all about Trump and that white suburban voters hold the key. That vision, consciously or not, sees a de facto division of roles: wherein the Democratic Party’s base delivers a requisite number of votes while the party largely focuses its actual policies and outreach spending priorities on “moderate” white voters. And that vision looks forward to the corporate donor class retaining its hold on the party, while the base gets minimal attention with election outreach and minimal help from Democrats in power.

As the Autopsy concludes: “Operating from a place of defensiveness and denial will not turn the party around. Neither will status quo methodology... What must now take place includes honest self-reflection and confronting a hard truth: that many view the party as often in service to a rapacious oligarchy and increasingly out of touch with people in its own base… The party must learn how to speak a populist tongue that is in sync with real advocacy for a clear agenda, putting public needs above corporate profits. An imperative is to find common political denominators that are inspirational and practical, cutting across demographic lines while building foundations for social advancement and a humane future.”

Affordable Call Time Tools for Democratic Candidates

-by Andy Millard

"Call time." The very words extract cold beads of sweat from the forehead of many a self-respecting candidate. Yet unless you can self-fund or draw upon a financial sugar daddy, candidate call time will be a major part of your campaign. Ask any experienced campaigner: a candidate who doesn’t make the calls doesn’t stand a chance.

There are lots of methods for raising campaign cash: parties, emails, direct mail, a Donate button on your website. But none comes close to the power of a personal appeal from the candidate. That being the case, you need to make the most of call time.

How much call time is required? The answer varies depending on your skill in getting to yes and how quickly you complete each call. But it also depends on (a) the quality of the list you’re calling from and (b) the efficiency of your dialing system.

The All-Important List

During my 2016 congressional campaign, I raised more than half our war chest from friends and family. I hated the thought of asking buddies and business contacts for money, but you know what? Calling strangers is a lot harder. Your friends already know and trust you; they want you to succeed, and they’ll usually jump at the chance to help make it happen.

(Side note: There’s a whole technique for conducting the actual call-- the right mindset, the perfect combination of script and conversation, the art of drawing the other person into a meaningful exchange while keeping the call brief-- but it deserves a fuller discussion so we’ll save it for its own post.)

The point here is that your best list is probably your own list. But once you blow through those folks, what’s next?

Chances are you’re going to need to pay for the next group of targets. There’s any number of fundraising firms-- just Google “Democratic fundraising firms” and see what you get. Their quality and pricing varies greatly depending on the firm, research methods, specific people doing the research, and any additional services offered by the firm.

All Lists are Not Created Equal

Early in my campaign, one of our consultants eagerly worked out a deal to obtain a huge list from a local activist with a blog presence. What a mess! The list was massive — over 60,000 contacts-- but many records contained bad our outdated info, many people were uninterested in politics, were staunch Republicans, or were dead-- and virtually none wanted to be on any kind of list. The result was that we wasted a lot of time and alienated a lot of people.

Remember: A list of 250 quality prospects is infinitely more valuable than a list of 60,000 poorly-researched unknowns.

A Good List at a Reasonable Cost

Say you hire a firm for $5,000 per month. You’ll start each subsequent month knowing that the first $5,000 you raise will go straight to the consultant. That’s fine if the consultant is top-notch and your cash flow keeps up. But what if you bust your butt each month and still raise only $6,000? You’ll soon feel like you’re working for the consultant rather than them working for you. You might say to yourself: “Y’know, if I fired the consultant, did less call time and raised just $2,000 a month, I’d be way ahead.”

Don’t kid yourself. Modern campaigns run on money; you can’t settle for the cheap solution just because it’s easy. You need a list-- a good one. Just don’t overpay for it.

Where to Find a List

I don’t know many people in the fundraising business, but one I do know and respect is Jonas Courey of Democratic Candidates Conference. He’s offering attendees 25% off their first month’s service, which is a fantastic deal considering it completely offsets the cost of conference registration.

Dialing Systems

Dialing the phone is slow and leaves too much room for procrastination. The following tools can greatly improve your call time efficiency. Each consists of a web-based platform that controls your phone and displays the contact’s information during calls.

The Preview Dialer

A preview dialer is one step ahead of regular phone calling. The dialer application displays the target’s record in your web browser, but it doesn’t dial the phone until you tell it to by clicking the appropriate button. Immediately following the call, the next record pops up allowing you take a quick look before initiating the next call.

I’m not a fan of this system. Yes, it allows you to read about your target before calling, but the information may be of little use considering that most calls go unanswered. And you have to initiate each call, which leaves too many opportunities to slow the process down.

The Power Dialer

With a power dialer, the system dials for you. And it does it fast: as soon as one call ends, the next one starts ringing and the target’s record appears on your screen. This is the kind of system I used. I found that I usually had time to do a quick read of my target before they picked up-- that is, if they picked up, which again is less than half the time. If you reach voicemail, just click another button to leave a pre-recorded message in the background while the system immediately initiates the next call.

Predictive Dialer

A predictive dialer makes the most of your time-- but at a cost. The system dials, say, three calls-- all at the same time. If one gets answered, the dialer drops the other attempts, connects you with the target and displays that person’s record. What’s more, it doesn’t even wait for you to hang up before it calls the next batch of three. That’s the predictive part: over time the system learns how long you’re likely to stay on a call. It then times its next set of dials to get you talking to another person as quickly as possible.

Some experienced campaigners swear by the predictive dialer because of its efficiency. The drawback is that it can be impersonal. We’ve all been on the receiving end of telemarketer calls: those few seconds of silence before getting connected to a breathless, slightly confused agent on the other end who’s probably trying to read your name while attempting to be as natural as possible. It can make the target feel irritable and disrespected. The way I look at it, if I’m going to ask someone to give money to me-- a perfect stranger-- the least I can do is be waiting for them when they answer the phone.

Try All Three

If you’re not sure which kind of dialer you’d prefer, maybe you should try them all. CallHub, another DemCanCon sponsor, has an impressive system that includes a preview dialer, power dialer and predictive dialer. CallHub has no minimum fee: you pay only for the time you’re actually connected on a call. The rate is 1.4¢ for every 30 seconds of calling, which translates to about $50 for 29 hours of actual phone time. There’s no charge for no-answers or voicemail pickups.

Like Donor Connection, CallHub also has a special offer for DemCanCon registrants: when you register for the conference you’ll receive 1,700 minutes of free calling on the system using any or all of the dialer systems discussed above.

The Bottom Line

(1) Accept that phone calling is your most effective method of fundraising.
(2) Be sure to call from a good list of prospective donors.
(3) Do NOT pay too much for the list.
(4) Utilize an automated dialing system to maximize productivity.
(5) Understand that your success will be directly proportional to the number of hours you spend and the number of calls you make.

For more information, check out these two episodes of the Democratic Candidates Podcast:

Episode 7 - Powerful Phone Calling Tool for Campaigns on a Budget - With Augustus Franklin of CallHub.io

Episode 9 - Call Time Tips with Jonas Courey of MyDonorConnect.com

You can listen to the podcast and register for the Democratic Candidates Conference at DemCanCon.org. The sponsor-related offers above will be presented to you when you register through the site.

The Indispensable CRM: Choosing The Right One For Your Campaign

-by Andy Millard

Your campaign needs a CRM. This is not negotiable. If you don’t have one already, you’re behind the competition. Make your best selection and get started now.

“CRM” stands for customer relationship management. It is the central tool for any business-- including a political campaign-- that works with substantial numbers of clients and prospects.

At its core, a CRM is a database of customers and prospects, sort of like the contacts app on your phone but much, much more powerful. A good political CRM helps you keep up with prospective voters, tracks your communications with them, and works with other tools to manage call time and canvassing.

I’ve worked with a variety of CRMs over the years; choosing the right-fit CRM is my first task whenever I start a business or campaign. But selecting the right CRM isn’t easy. Each system has different feature sets, with differing strengths and weaknesses. Costs can vary greatly depending on the system, selected features and the size of your operation, and all CRMs are constantly evolving. Let’s take a quick look at four good choices.

1- NGP VAN

Many Democrats are familiar with NGP VAN. It’s been around a long time; the CRM component falls on the NGP side of the operation (it was created 20 years ago by Nathaniel G. Pearlman, hence the initials).

The good: NGP VAN has a longstanding semi-exclusive relationship with the Democratic Party, and many longtime operatives are very practiced in its many idiosyncrasies. If you can afford to hire professional staff, most of them will have experience with this platform. It is a complete tried-and-true solution, by far the most-utilized system for Democrats across the country.

The bad: The long cozy relationship with the national party is also NGP’s greatest weakness. It has hindered the emergence of competing CRMs and lead to complacency and stale technology at NGP. Remember “Berniegate,” when a gap in network security allowed the Sanders campaign to access information belonging to the Hillary side? That was caused by a mess-up at NGP VAN. And I’ll tell you a secret: the breach was so egregious that everyone on my own congressional campaign staff was able to see that very same information for several hours.

My campaign’s experience with NGP wasn’t great. The system was sprawling and complex, requiring lots of clicks to accomplish simple tasks. Features didn’t always sync easily with other features. Our sole access point for support-- which we needed frequently despite having experienced staff members who were well-versed with NGP-- was a lone staffer working in the state party headquarters; he was slow to respond and not always helpful. Pricing is extremely opaque: the only way to learn how much it will cost you is to go through their sales process, which in my opinion is a poor way to do business.

  The unknown: NGP recently announced NGP 8, which they say simplifies the user experience and adds new and better features, especially in the area of fundraising. My issues occurred during the 2016 cycle, so they shouldn't stop you from giving the system an honest look.

One more thing: NGP VAN has a policy of withholding some features from candidates who are challenging a Democratic incumbent. If that applies to you, you still have options within the NGP VAN universe, but you may not get the full suite.

2- Blue Utopia

Democratic digital expert Beth Becker is a big fan of Blue Utopia. It’s been helping California Democrats for years, and now it’s spreading east.

The good: Blue Utopia has a robust feature set comparable to that of NGP. It is powerful and easy to use. The pricing is scaled to fit the size of your campaign, and unlike NGP VAN, Blue Utopia’s pricing is transparent: they display it on their website for the world to see.

The bad: The user experience is slightly dated, requiring multiple clicks on multiple screens to see and accomplish what you want. This is just a CRM: whereas the VAN side of NGP VAN contains voter data from your state elections board, Blue Utopia is missing this piece (as are the other two CRMs in this review). This means you’ll need to get that data elsewhere. Luckily there are plenty of sources for robust voter data, which we’ll cover in a future post. Another challenge: Blue Utopia has a relatively small user base largely concentrated in California, so may have a harder time finding staff with experience on the platform.

The unknown: I haven’t used this system so I can’t offer an assessment based on experience. But the recommendation of people like Beth Becker carries a lot of weight. And like NGP VAN, Blue Utopia works exclusively with Democrats, so at least you know you’re both on the same side.

3- NationBuilder

Now we get into the nonpartisan solutions. NationBuilder was designed as an all-in-one platform for businesses and organizations, and they expanded into politics.

The good: My campaign used NationBuilder-- even though we had already purchased NGP-- because NGP was just too darn complicated. NationBuilder is a comprehensive system; along with the CRM you get a template-based website that syncs seamlessly with the CRM; when supporters sign up on the site, they get routed directly into the database. The whole system is pretty intuitive and user-friendly. Pricing is reasonable and transparent, and the phone-based support is prompt, friendly and excellent.

The bad: The fact that NationBuilder works with both parties is a deal breaker for some. To be clear: I don’t buy the argument put forth by some Dems that your NationBuilder data might be used to help the other side. Your data belongs to you; it’s at least as safe on NationBuilder as it is on NGP. We used NationBuilder because we thought it gave our campaign the best chance for success-- but we were unaware that there was a good Dems-only option in the form of Blue Utopia. Knowing what I know now-- including the fact that the Trump campaign used NationBuilder-- my decision might be different.

The unknown: NationBuilder is a lead participant in an initiative called Unlock the VAN which advocates for the Democratic Party to open up their voter data so that it can be used in systems beyond NGP VAN. The argument is that expanding the field of competition would encourage innovations that could help more Dems win. It’s hard to argue with the logic.

4- Crowdskout

Promoting itself as “the campaign-winning data management and marketing platform,” Crowdskout is new and sleek. It’s designed specifically for campaigns, nonprofits and advocacy groups regardless of party or ideology.

The good: If I were starting from scratch and didn’t mind that my CRM was nonpartisan, I’d give Crowdskout serious consideration. It offers an extensive suite of features on a clean, modern interface. There’s a widget that allows you to capture whenever a contact interacts with your website: if they watch your embedded video for example, and even how long they watch it. You can make phone calls right from within Crowdskout for an extra fee. And Crowdskout assigns you a “concierge” support person to assist with any service issues.

The bad: In order to see firsthand how the system works, you’ll have to request an online demo. Like NationBuilder, Crowdskout plays in both Republican and Democratic sandboxes-- but at least they’re is open about that fact. The same can’t be said for pricing, which is conspicuously absent on the website. And pricing can vary widely, from $75 per month for a campaign with up to 5,000 records to $1,250 for a congressional-sized campaign with up to 250,000 records.

The unknown: In my conversations with the company, I was told that they have a new CTO whose first priority is to make the website more transparent with regard to user features and pricing. When asked for a comment about their policy of serving both parties, a Crowdskout rep said simply, “We’re just trying to sell software.” You can read a fairly thorough review here.

Bottom Line

Each of these four options deserves a close look, and each has its pluses and minuses. You may lean toward the companies that share your Democratic ideals. You may favor the solutions that are the most open and transparent. You may prefer a system that will save you time, or that’s relatively inexpensive.

But one overriding consideration eclipses the rest: which system will give you the best chance to win your race? None of the available options will be a perfect fit for your campaign; you’ll need to compromise somewhere. Just don’t compromise so much that it lessens your chances of beating the socks off the GOP on Election Day. The rest of us are counting on you.



(Note: For more information on CRMs and website best practices, listen to Andy's podcast interview with Beth Becker. Find it on the home page of DemCanCon.org or on the Democratic Candidates Podcast website.)

Candidate Tips From Andy Millard: How To Use Green Screen Videos To Expand Your Reach

So many candidates told me that they found Andy Millard's advice to candidates column useful in July that I figured I'd share his latest as well. July was very general. This one is very specific-- the use of green screens in video-making.

The video above gives you seven tips for using the green screen technique effectively. Andy shared 4 more below:

• Illuminating the green screen behind you with video lights might help produce a cleaner key. The main goal is to have an even hue across the entire green screen so that the editing software doesn't have to guess which parts to key out.
• Have your subject stand well in front of the green screen-- ten feet is usually a good distance. Otherwise some of the green from the screen might reflect on the subject, which can make for a blurry key.
• You'll notice that all the "location" backgrounds in the video are slightly blurry. That's intentional; it makes the shot more believable. A good camera will focus on the subject, leaving the background at least somewhat out of focus-- so we recreate that effect by blurring the background a little.
• Don't let your subject wear green! The editing program will pick up on it and key it out, making the speaker look like they have holes in them. Not a good look for a modern professional.

​He adds that there are tons of little tricks and techniques to improve your chroma key project. You can spend a ton of time and still end up with a less-than-perfect video. But if you've got the time... well, he encourages candidates and their campaigns to give it a try.

Running For Office? Here's Some Free Advice

A month or so ago, Andy Millard-- a candidate last year against NC crackpot Patrick McHenry-- told me how he wants to share what he learned in his run with other candidates. He's organizing the Democratic Candidates Conference to help with training, networking, resources and support that are often painfully difficult to come by (unless they're one of the select DCCC recruits). As you probably know, I'm always complaining about how the DCCC and the lame consultants who come out of the DCCC instruct their worthless zombie-robot candidates to avoid putting contentious issues on their websites. In an advice to candidates guest post, Andy goes further:

7 Online Mistakes Democratic Campaigns Must Avoid
-by Andy Millard

Dr. Kyle Horton’s website includes everything a candidate site needs to be effective

You can learn a lot about a candidate from their presence on the web-- and what you learn isn’t always good.

Motivated Democrats all over the country are stepping up to challenge GOP incumbents. Part of our mission here at the Democratic Candidates Conference is to uncover new candidates and help them to get off on the right foot. So we’ve been scouring the internet getting to know the early crop of candidates.

Sometimes you run across a candidate with an impressive internet presence that immediately makes you sit up and take notice.

Kyle Horton, challenging David Rouzer in North Carolina’s 7th congressional district, is one such candidate. She has a terrific website where you can get to know the candidate and her story. There’s a clear statement of why she’s running and where she stands on issues. Her Facebook and Twitter pages are consistent with the website and are updated frequently with fresh and relevant content. In fact the streams from both social media sites appear right on the campaign website.

Clearly this is a a candidate to be reckoned with. She has obviously put a lot of thought, time and effort into her candidacy. She means business.

Unfortunately, Kyle Horton is the exception rather than the rule. More often we see some variation a one-page website featuring a heroic photo of the candidate, a huge DONATE button, and an invitation join the candidate’s “movement.” And that’s it. Essentially, the message to the visitor is, “I’m a person you don’t know who’s running for office and you should love me.”

This is not a knock on those candidates. If you’re a Democrat up against a Republican, you’re our kind of people. We’re all in this together and we want you to be successful. So now is the time-- now, while your campaign is in its infancy, when prospective supporters are getting to know you primarily through your online presence-- right now is the time for you to look for problems and fix them.

Here are eight of the most glaring issues we have found. Some are easier to deal with than others. But they are all non-negotiable. If any of them applies to you, don’t expect to be taken seriously as a candidate until they’re addressed:

1- No campaign URL or official email address

I’m sorry, but johndoeforcongress@gmail.com is not an official campaign email address. Go to Godaddy.com and spend fifteen bucks on your own URL. Use it for your website, for your email address, and eventually for the addresses of your staff.

2- No campaign website

Believe it or not, we occasionally run across candidates whose only online presence is through Facebook. You should not pretend to call yourself a candidate until you have a campaign website.

3- No contact info on website

Virtually every candidate website features prominent buttons for making donations and signing up to volunteer, but precious few make it easy for visitors to comment, email or call. In our research of Democratic congressional campaigns, we have found fewer than 1 in 4 offer both an email address and phone number. In fact an amazing 28% of sites offered neither an email address nor phone number.

Campaigns are about communication. What does it say to your prospective constituents when you want them to give you money but don’t want them to talk to you? (And in case you’re wondering, an impersonal “contact” form is better than nothing, but it’s a poor substitute for a phone number and email address.)

4- Missing social streams

In 21st Century politics, every campaign must have an active Facebook page and Twitter account. LinkedIn and Instagram, if well executed, will boost your credibility. But you’ve got to have Facebook and Twitter.

5- Broken links on website

If a visitor clicks a link on your site and gets an error message or is sent to a dead end, you the candidate look bad. Check every link on your website and make sure they work.

6- Not mentioning the district you’re running for

I estimate that in 2018 there will be 300 or more Democratic candidates for U.S. House of Representatives alone, and that’s not counting incumbents. Don’t leave your visitors wondering what seat you’re seeking. Tell them clearly on your website and social pages.

7- No favicon (or worse, one belonging to someone else)

This is a little thing, but little things are important. A favicon is a tiny icon that appears on the tab of your web browser. It identifies the site you’re on. When I ran for congress, my favicon was a simple red “A” for my first name. Every website provider allows you to upload a favicon; it’s easy and free.

Here’s why it’s important: If you don’t upload your own favicon, your website host (Wordpress, Weebly, NationBuilder, etc.) will use theirs in its place, which makes you look like an amateur.

8- No website footer

Every professional campaign website should have a footer at the bottom of each page. It should include: phone number, an email address, mailing address, and “Paid for by [name of campaign committee].” (A good footer to emulate is at MartyWaltersForCongress.com.) If you don’t use your own footer, your website host is likely to use their own, and it will say “Powered by Wordpress” or “Powered by Weebly,” etc., which means you’re using your precious web real estate to advertise for them.

Marty Walters, one of several Democrats running in California’s 1st Congressional district, includes an information-packed footer on every page of her website

North Carolina Has OutLawed Payday Lenders-- But Patrick McHenry Is The Industry's Champion Even More So Than Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Patrick McHenry got into Congress just as DWT was getting started in 2005-- and we've watched for over decade as he built a career based on blatant and unaccountable corruption, using his position on the House Financial Services Committee to raise $3,717,511 from the Finance Sector he's supposed to be protecting the public from. This year alone, the Finance Sector has given McHenry $1,176,225 in legalistic bribes, the 4th most of any member of Congress other than Speaker Paul Ryan, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Wall Street's favorite Senate errand boy Patrick Murphy. It's almost unfathomable that a reform-minded good government city like Asheville would be represented in Congress by someone as corrupt as McHenry. Unfortunately, though, the Republican legislature has drawn NC-10 to negate Buncombe County's voice with Hate Talk Radio listeners in Catawba, Lincoln, Gaston, Cleveland and Rutherford counties.

This year the Democratic Party has gotten behind Andy Millard, a first time candidate from Polk County who is a financial planner, author, former teacher, principal and small business owner. You can learn more about Andy and the issues he's highlighting in his campaign here on his official website or on his Facebook page. We asked Andy to help us understand the eye-popping relationship between McHenry and the predatory Pay Day Lending Industry which we've been through the actions of corrupt Democrats like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Patrick Murphy but is one of those areas of Congress where guilt is shared equally on both sides of the aisle. As you read his guest post, please consider contributing to his grassroots campaign by tapping the thermometer on the right.


Here’s Why People are Fed Up with Congress
By Andy Millard



Want to see a microcosm of everything that’s wrong with Congress in 2016? Just look at my opponent, six-term incumbent Rep. Patrick McHenry. He is a career politician whose influence in Congress comes in part from the immense amount of money he raises from unsavory institutions. And he pays them back by doing their bidding. His relationship with the payday lending industry is a perfect example.

Payday lenders are illegal in my home state of North Carolina. Their customers-- everyday folks living paycheck-to-paycheck-- take out short-term loans with interest rates as high as 400% or more. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), four out of five borrowers are unable to repay the loan on time (usually two weeks), so they roll it into a new loan with even more interest and fees. The majority of borrowers end up paying more in fees than they borrowed to begin with. Bottom line: the industry makes big profits by driving struggling families into a downward cycle of debt.

Numerous groups, including a broad coalition of religious groups, have condemned payday lenders and their usurious practices. So you would assume a Congressman representing North Carolina would never support the payday lending industry.

You would be wrong. Patrick McHenry is one of payday lending’s best friends in Congress. He has spoken against proposed tighter regulations on the House floor as recently as last month.

Why? Follow the money. Payday lenders are very profitable-- and they use some of those profits to support members of Congress who support them, including Mr. McHenry. The following is a litany of his entanglements with payday lenders:

In January 2011, McHenry was the keynote speaker at the Community Financial Services Association conference at the plush Westin Diplomat Resort and Spa in Hollywood, Florida. The CFSA is a trade group created by payday lenders to fight laws that might hinder them from taking advantage of those in need. Their biggest enemy is the afore-mentioned CFPB, which is a government agency created to help consumers avoid being ripped off in financial transactions.

According to the CFSA conference brochure, the gathering would answer such burning questions as, “Are there ways that I can maximize long-term profits and minimize regulatory risk?”; “What can I do to avoid getting sued?"; and, “What’s next for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?”

Apparently, McHenry paid close attention to that last question--  that March, he co-sponsored a bill to cripple the CFPB’s ability to protect Americans from payday lenders, and was promptly rewarded with over $30,000 in contributions from the payday lending industry a few days later. Perhaps coincidentally, a few weeks later, McHenry very publicly antagonized Elizabeth Warren, the then-leader of the CFPB, accusing her of lying as part of his campaign to undermine the agency.

On August 22, 2013, McHenry signed a letter criticizing the Department of Justice’s efforts to punish payday lenders. The payday loan industry had donated almost $13,000 to McHenry the previous month, and they gave him another $2,600 after the letter was sent.

In October of 2014, McHenry again spoke at a conference for payday lenders. This time, he was the keynote speaker at the FiSCA Conference and Exposition at the Cosmopolitan Hotel in Las Vegas. Similar to the CFSA, the Financial Service Centers of America (FiSCA) is another group that regularly works to minimize regulation of the payday loan industry.

McHenry gave his FiSCA Conference address on October 10. According to disclosure forms his PAC, the McHenry Leadership Fund, filed with the FEC, McHenry received $50,000 from FiSCA and its affiliated companies on October 17-- just one week after he spoke at their conference. On November 17, those same forms show, he received ten donations from FiSCA board members in one day. Those donations added up to $9,500. That’s almost $60,000 from FiSCA, within a month of speaking at their conference. When you add it to the $15,000 McHenry also received from CFSA board member Dan Adams on November 17, that total amount that McHenry accepted from payday lenders in one month becomes $75,000.

In January of 2015, McHenry was named Vice Chairman of the House Financial Committee, where he found himself in an even better position to antagonize the CFPB. Just one month later, he voted against protecting veterans from predatory lending practices. In March, he co-sponsored one bill that would abolish the CFPB, and co-sponsored another that would slow it down while limiting its funding. He received a $5,000 check from the National Installment Lenders Association at the end of March, and then another $2,500 from the Online Lenders Alliance at the end of April.

That June, McHenry signed a letter criticizing the CFPB director, while voting for legislation that would decrease government scrutiny of the payday lending industry. Two weeks later, McHenry received $2,000 from the American Financial Services Association, which lobbies against the CFPB on behalf of installment loans, which are similar to payday loans. Then in July, he co-sponsored yet another bill attempting to abolish the CFPB. On September 14, he received a total of $4,500 from the American Financial Services Association.

Last October, the nonpartisan Campaign for Accountability called for an ethics probe of McHenry due to the amount of money he’s accepted from the payday loan industries in proximity to acting in their favor.

Payday loans are illegal in Patrick McHenry’s home state, and he knows it. Yet the payday loan industry has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaigns and PACs. He speaks at their conferences, and argues on behalf of their interests in Congress. As Patrick McHenry’s opponent in North Carolina’s 10th Congressional District, I have called for him to return any and all contributions he has received from payday lenders and their employees, as well as the PACs who have donated to him on their behalf.

No wonder Congress’ approval rating is in the cellar. It’s a rotten system that results in rotten legislators. We can change this mess, but it’s going to take a new group of clean politicians. Despite what some might have you believe, the VOTERS alone can fix it.