Video Was Adopted Fast By Bands And Labels With Nothing To Lose

What do Randy Bryce, Amy McGrath, MJ Hegar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez all have in common? Well, if you hit the links, you'll probably know what I'm talking about. None of those are expensive 30 second TV spots. No one ever heard of any of the candidates before those videos launched them onto the public consciousness. All have been seen by millions of people-- and all have brought in huge numbers of small, grassroots contributions.

Neither Paul Ryan nor Lyin' Bryan Steil, Randy's two GOP opponents, would ever or could ever do that kind of a video. Nor would Jim Gray-- much better known and very rich and favored opponent of McGrath-- or Andy Barr, the Republican she's duking it out with now. Ditto for John Carter in Texas and for Joe Crowley in Queens. Joe Crowley (D-NY), John Carter (R-TX), Andy Barr (R-KY), Jim Gray (D-KY), Paul Ryan (R-WI)/Lyin' Bryan Steil (R-WI) are all old school, very, very old school. They spend small fortunes for some hired guns to create basically meaningless, unmemorable 30 second TV spots for them that clutter up the airwaves and piss people off.

I slip so often on the phone and refer to the Blue America candidates as "artists." That's because I'm from the music business and I deal with the candidates the same way I dealt with the artists of my label. Randy is like Neil Young, Alexandria is like Joni Mitchell, Ammar is like Billie Joe Armstrong, Kara is like Chaka Khan, Katie is like Madonna, Jared is like Ice-T... they all remind me of someone I had to deal with as a record company executive. In my earliest days in the music biz I had an indie label in San Francisco, 415 Records. My partner Chris and I rented some space in a dilapidated old fire house in the pre-gentrified Mission District and ran our label out of that. Who would ever think we could have a #1 record? And that's why I have that Buggles song up top. Let me explain.

Before MTV came along-- and there was no viable internet or social media at the time-- the only way to promote a song nationally was on radio. And the only way to get on radio was to pay immense bribes. It cost thousands of dollars to bring a song into the national top ten-- out of the question for a small company like 415 Records. We worked college radio and new wave specialty shows and sometimes we could break through on one or two big stations like WBCN in Boston or KROQ in L.A. But Top 40 or slickly formatted AOR? Not a chance. So along came MTV. The big record companies and big artists looked at it like some kind of alien life form-- interesting... but what kind of interplanetary disease was it carrying? Would it turn vicious and eat you? The big artists and labels-- like Joe Crowley and Jim Gray and Paul Ryan-- didn't make videos. We saw an opportunity and we quickly filled the void. We had massive hits (for us) with Romeo Void, the Red Rockers (our first #1), Translator and Wire Train (below).

The same folks who put together the smash Randy Bryce hit, just did one for California insurgent Kevin de León, the progressive candidate for the U.S. Senate seat held by Dianne Feinstein who's been in it since California first became a state in 1850. The video is spectacular-- emotive, compelling, incredibly powerful.-- easily one of the best this year.



You think Dianne Feinstein could or would ever do a video like that? You want to talk about "old school?" If enough California voters see it, Kevin's going to win-- even though Feinstein put $5,006,050 of her own loot into her campaign and raised another $10,000,000... compared to Kevin's $1,310,851. (Please contribute to Kevin's campaign here so he can get that out more widely.)

This week our old friend Eric Hogensen has some video tips for struggling political campaigns, 3 Tips for Using Affordable Videos for Your Campaign:

"Only a few years ago," he wrote, "videos were a medium that only large, TV-focused campaigns could afford. That's all changed. Videos are incredibly captivating, and thanks to several new services, producing them and getting views is easier than ever before. Here are our 3 tips for using inexpensive videos for your campaign.

1. Pick a service for creating simple videos.

There are many options to choose from. 30Second Explainer Videos creates short, animated videos for businesses, but the Whiteboard style also works great for candidate campaigns. There are also several companies (Rocketium, Animoto / Animaker, Showbox) that allow you to create your own videos in-house, even if you don't have any experience with editing. These cater well to social media feeds.

2. Plug your videos into social media.

Whether you are doing expensive, professionally-produced videos meant for television, or affordable explainer videos like the ones described above, you need to be advertising them on social media, particularly YouTube and Facebook. Services like HootSuite can help. Boosting the ads to your target audience is easy and, for local races, is one of the best ways to raise your name ID.

3. This can't wait until the last minute.

Developing your social video plan early will allow you to tell your story to voters over the course of several weeks. Plus you'll want to get registered as a political advertiser with Facebook right away. The process takes several weeks, so you'll want to start it at least a month before Election Day!

What Do DCCC Corruption, M83, Beating Steve King In Iowa And Running A Modern Congressional Campaign All Have In Common?

Above is a first rate long-form video done this week by Brave New Films on J.D. Scholten, the former baseball player-- and progressive Democrat-- running against Iowa bigot and neo-fascist Steve King. It's unlikely the ad will ever be seen on television, although it's very likely it will be seen by lots of IA-04 voters. The video and shorter excerpts from it show start appearing on social media very soon. Does that count? Oh, I think so.

A campaign manager contacted me about an ad recently. She needed a small bit of a "hit song." I suggested "Outro" by a French electronic duo living in my neighborhood, M83. "Outro is the last song on the Grammy-nominated album Hurry Up, We're Dreaming (2011). You've probably heard it on the Mazda commercial but this is the actual song:



My friend said she'd never heard of the song or the band. It had only sold 300,000 copies in the U.S. and had never got into the top 10 on the U.S. charts. The single never charted at all. "How is that a hit?" she asked. Good question. The music business has changed significantly. A hit used to be determined by how much play it got on radio and, later, by aggregate sales. "Outro" has been used on a couple dozen ads, in films and trailers, on TV shows and in sporting events. The first use was in the snowboarding documentary The Art of Flight. A year later ABC used it as the promo for Once Upon A Time. It's been used to promote everything from Victoria's Secret, SickKids, NASCAR, the World Series to the Vampire Diaries, Gossip Girl and the PlayStation video game Paragon. So how many people people have heard it? Many millions more than people hearing a top 10 radio track for sure.

Things change. The nimble prosper. The sluggish and lumbering disappear. This week, writing for the Daily Beast, Gideon Resnick and Sam Stein reported that Democrats Won’t Stop, Can’t Stop, Spending Big Bucks on Television Ads. The DCCC and DSCC and associated operations define "sluggish" and "lumbering." And corrupt. Short version: powerful and corrupt DCCC/DSCC/EMILY's List consultants take a 10% cut on media spending. A huge digital campaign costs $100,000 ($10,000 commission). A huge TV campaign can cost anything but let's say $400,000 ($40,000 commission). Got it? This year's DCCC staffer is next cycle's media consultant. And this year's media consultant is next cycle's DCCC crook. You've heard of revolving doors, right? OK, Resnick and Stein:

Recent primary victories by underfunded Democratic candidates have prompted a renewed push within the party for it to finally quit its addiction to television advertising in favor of digital.

But not everyone is on board, raising the specter of bitter internal fights over strategic vision in the critical months before the midterm elections and into the 2020 presidential contest.

“There are a lot of people in the progressive community who have turned against TV advertising because they view it as the primary driver for big-moneyed politics,” said Jeff Weaver, Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign manager. “I think that’s a mistake. You are conceding a huge amount of turf to the Republican Party.”

For years, the Democratic Party has grappled with the changing media landscape and how best to allocate its resources in response to it. But what was largely a tense but civil debate has become something more acrimonious after Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016 exposed what many saw as a painfully large digital advantage for Republicans. In the wake of that loss, some notable party luminaries have called for a dramatic reallocation of resources.

“Digital is not the future, it is the present and that’s a major problem for us,” said Howard Dean, the former DNC chair whose 2004 campaign pioneered using the internet to raise large sums through small donations. “It is a major problem because Republicans are still kicking our ass.”

Despite these fears, however, the debate remains unsettled, in part because top officials are uncertain about what lessons can be drawn from recent contests and whether they can be applied to future ones.

Dean’s theory of the case appears bolstered by primaries in New York, Massachusetts and Florida, where underdog candidates managed to win races with comparatively little money spent on television ads. Instead, those candidates relied on strong volunteer networks, compelling biographies and a mastery of the new digital landscape—from low-budget viral videos to Facebook Live and social media targeting—to reach voters outside of their television sets.

The first, and perhaps most notable example was the late June win by 28-year-old first time candidate and former bartender Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez whose defeat of Rep. Joe Crowley, a political institution in Queens, came despite the fact that her campaign’s only actual ad was a biographical video released online in late May from a production company formed by two Detroit members of the Democratic Socialists of America. The spot cost less than $10,000. But it garnered over 300,000 views within a single day and managed to define Ocasio-Cortez for the district’s changing demography of younger, more diverse voters.

Just two months later, Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum won a crowded Democratic gubernatorial primary in Florida without ever leading in the polls prior to election day. Outpaced in the money race, the campaign’s strategy was to get him in front of as many voters as possible and spread his name via digital and social media, including Facebook Live videos. Their TV spending, around $1.5 million total, paled in comparison to competitors like former Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine who spent over $26 million in part on a late-stage negative ad campaign against billionaire Jeff Greene, who was also blanketing the airwaves.

Shortly after Gillum’s win, Ayanna Pressley, a city councilor in Boston, ousted 20-year-incumbent Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), in an election that massively expanded turnout in Massachusetts’ 7th District. The campaign’s only television investment was a modest buy on Univision and Telemundo. The 30-second version of the spot ran in late August and early September for a total cost of around $17,000. The 60-second cut was put on Facebook.

“I think 2018 is rewriting a lot of our assumptions about campaigns,” Pressley’s campaign manager, Sarah Groh, told the Daily Beast. “We knew we would be out-fundraised and we knew we would be outspent but we believed so fiercely from the beginning was the way to win was to go directly to the people. That really became kind of the north star for this campaign.”

For digital evangelists, these data points have been nothing short of affirmational.

“When you look at how particularly younger people are even consuming TV, they consume it on digital. So anyone who thinks they can spend 10 percent on digital and the rest on broadcast TV is just missing massive swaths of the population,” said Cheryl Contee, the CEO and founder of the new digital agency Do Big Things. “If TV were such a winner why didn’t the Russians use that to sabotage our elections?... They could have astroturfed the shit out of TV but they didn’t do that because it was a lot easier for them, faster, and more efficient and more powerful to engage in the techniques they did using digital.”

But while these victories do lend credence to the idea of television’s diminished influence, other Democrats-- including even some those on the recent triumphant digital campaigns-- cautioned that no two races or candidates were the same.

Florida Democrats noted that Gillum did, in fact, benefit from TV ads-- the ads that were run by his opponents against his other opponents and not him. And Kevin Cate, an adviser for Gillum, noted that his boss had the ability to connect with a younger, more diverse voter set through live-streaming, which made TV less of a necessity.

“This has been a long time coming for most people to recognize how much more genuine communication on social media can be than a television ad,” Cate said.

A Pew Research Center survey published on Monday found that 68 percent of American adults say they get news from social media at least occasionally. And a Pew survey from January found that only 50 percent of American adults get news regularly from television, and only 28 percent from cable news.

But according to campaign operatives, the vast majority of funds continues to be spent on television advertising. One top digital strategist said that conservatives are roughly spending around 40 percent of their media budgets on digital while progressives spend around 10 percent. Another placed the figure for Democrats at around 20 percent.

One more thing-- though J.D. Scholten won his 3-way primary with over half the votes, the DCCC has decided to ignore what Democratic voters in the district want. The committee tasked with electing more Democrats to Congress has refused to back J.D. in his race against Steve King, primarily because every time King says something racist or insane-- which he does frequently-- the DCCC can send out a scary fundraising letter to ask for money for itself. If J.D. were to beat him, they'd lose a source of income. Also, they say J.D. is "too progressive, because he, like 85% of Democrats, backs Medicare-for-All." What they never want to discuss is that as of the June 30 FEC reporting deadline, J.D. had raised $755,973 to King's $506,775. So... while the DCCC works overtime for their crap conservatives from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- Blue Dogs and New Dems-- please consider tapping on the 2018 congressional thermometer above to see which primary winners, like J.D., the DCCC refuses to back and consider giving him-- and them-- a hand.

More Campaign Advice From Eric Hogensen At HSG Campaigns: How Did Andrew Gillum Win?

Andrew picked Chris King as his running mate

Eric starts with the commonly held mainstream perception that Gillum's gubernatorial primary campaign was headed straight towards failure when... out of the blue-- he won.

• Andrew Gillum- 517,417 (34.3%)
• Gwen Graham- 472,735 (31.3%)
• Philip Levine- 306,450 (20.3%)
• Jeff Greene- 151,935 (10.1%)
• Christopher King- 37,464 (2.5%)

For as long as I've known Andrew-- until relatively recently-- he's been the head of People for the American Way's Young Elected Official. He's not a novice when it comes to winning elections. Not even close. "Florida’s gubernatorial primary," wrote Hogensen, "brought perhaps the biggest upset of the year, with Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum pulling off a surprise win that almost nobody saw coming. With polls predicting a 3rd place finish, how did Gillum manage to pull off victory?" Good question, for sure... though people watching closely saw the surge as it was happening and, those reading DWT also saw the rapidly rising internal polling numbers in the last 2 weeks of the campaign. Here's how Hogensen explains how Andrew won, all of which is exactly what happened:

1. He Created Clear Contrast:

Gillum's story wasn't just inspiring, it set him apart. He's the son of a bus driver and a construction worker, the first in his family to attend college, and (would be) the state's first African American governor. Compare that to his main opponents, Gwen Graham, Philip Levine, or Jeff Greene, who all came from privileged backgrounds. And compared to second-place finisher, the super-centrist Graham, Gillum's strong progressive credentials gave Democratic primary voters a clear ideological choice

2. He Didn't Fear the Label:

Earning endorsements from the likes of Bernie Sanders sets you up to be labeled a "socialist" by Republicans, but Gillum feared not. Progressives have long argued that staying in the middle doesn't win general elections. You can't win if you don't inspire the base. Enough Democrats felt comfortable with that argument to nominate him. Both conservatives and progressives will have ample reason to vote now.

3. He Brought in New Voices:

From what we can tell so far, the reason Gillum surprised pollsters is because he built a coalition of under-sampled voters-- namely people of color and Millennials. Re-creating the Obama coalition, he boosted turnout and has obvious energy going into November.

The latest Quinnipiac poll (likely voters) shows Andrew leading his far right Trumpist opponent Ron DeSantis 50% to 47%. Andrew has 93% of Democrats and DeSantis has 92% of Republicans. Exactly normal. So where is Andrew's strength coming from? Independents are backing him 55-42%. Also women... by 55-42% Andrew also leads there, considerably greater than DeSantis' 52-45% lead among men. And the black vote favors Andrew 93-2%. If you'd like to help make sure Andrew can go all the way in November, please consider contributing to his campaign by click on the 2018 Blue America gubernatorial thermometer on the right.

Campaign Advice From Direct Mail Expert Eric Hogensen

Eric's an old pal and I can't think of anyone better equipped top give advice on direct mail strategy. That's what he does for a living and I know almost nothing about it since I through it away along with stuff from the local grocery stores and the biweekly credit card offers from Chase. Here are his top 5 mistakes campaigns make with direct mail-- often, he says, driven by the candidates themselves:

1. Including everything on every mailer

Consistency is great in direct mail. And when on a budget, it makes sense to repeat the core message. But if a piece is supposed to focus on K-12 education, don't include your plan for health care reform. Your mailer should tell a story, not all the information you can think of.

2. Turning the mailer into a manifeso

A piece of direct mail is meant to be a simple advertisement for the campaign, not the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. A typical flat mailer needs no more than 100 to 150 words on it. Very few people will read more than that. The more text, the less likely it gets read.

3. Speaking in platitudes rather than specifics

A lot of us think in broad terms and reasoning, but the information that stands out when you read it is factual and specific. Don't explain how economics works on your mailer, show the reader the dollar and cent figures. Sometimes campaigns want to avoid committing to a fact or figure because it could be disputed. You know what? Bring on the dispute. Attention for a questionable stat is better than no attention at all.

4. Tinkering obsessively

Many candidates and campaign workers make the mistake of thinking, "If I just get this part a little closer to perfect..." No. Stop. Endless rounds of edits to your mail piece will not make it better. It will make it worse. To the reader who doesn't see the sausage getting made, the points you want to make will get more confusing and the artwork will look more hurried and sloppy.

5. Insisting your district number is included

Of the five mistakes, this is the least consequential. It doesn't hurt to include the district number, but it doesn't help. Candidates running for a particular district feel very connected to that number. But 99% of voters have no idea what the number of their State Senate district is. It's just not important.

And that's who and what ultimately matter: The voter reading the piece and what's important to them.

I asked Eric about the use of positive and negative messaging, both in primaries and in general elections. He was blunt and concise: "When it comes to the differences between primaries and general elections a good rule to follow is: Primaries are more about positives and contrasts. You need to boost your name recognition in the primary but also need to explain why you are the best fit among people who agree with you. Contrasts are essential in order to draw a distinction between you and your opponent(s) but you want to keep this from getting too nasty. Going negative in a primary is a dangerous game because it alienates you from people who mostly agree with you and can hurt feelings down the road. However in a general election, today's partisan environment has removed all niceties. Going negative is incredibly effective to both fire up our base as well as win over independents. There are no feelings to hurt and the people you might be alienating are not voting for you anyway."

 

Do You Ever Look Forward To Reading Campaign E-Mails? Here's A Tip For You

There are very few campaign e-mails with opening, even if it's from one of your favorite candidates. The candidates don't write them and the campaign e-mail-writing industry is the most hackish piece of the political business. The e-mails can ruin the image of even the most authentic candidates. The formulas come directly from the party committees and it's sad to watch even good candidates eventually give up and buy into their general tenor of deception, hysteria and stupidity. Although there are a few candidates who refuse to buy into the approach-- very few-- two exceptions whose e-mails are usually a joy to read are Alan Grayson's and Bernie Sanders'-- coincidentally, two of the only candidates who have been successful at racing money from the grassroots. You'd think more candidates could add 2 and 2 and come up with 4. I want to give you two examples from the last couple of days. First Grayson, who writes the e-mails personally and who asked what if Democrats win?

The national polling is forcing us to contemplate an extremely important question:

What if the Democrats win?

What if the Democrats win the House-- and the Senate?  What if the Democrats win the White House back in 2020?

My answer is simple.  It’s not just enough to win. You have to make the lives of ordinary people better.  You have to get good things done.

As July draws to a close, think about that.  We need to have someone in Congress who is determined to carry our progressive banner to victory, and GET GOOD THINGS DONE.

Eight years ago, when Scott Brown won Sen. Edward Kennedy’s seat and deprived the Democrats of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, certain people said, “OK, well, that’s it; let’s concede that the GOP will filibuster everything to death, and we’ll just have to see what happens after the next election.”

And certain other people said, “to hell with that. We have 50 million Americans who can’t see a doctor when they’re sick. We have to solve these kinds of problems, or we’re not worth a damn. Power without progress is pointless.”

I was one of those certain other people. (So was Nancy Pelosi, by the way.)

In the beginning, the middle and the end, it’s all about the good things you can do for people.

Frankly, having been through it once, I’m concerned about what might happen if we win. For too many Democrats, all it will mean is three more staffers, a larger office, and a couple of nice “congressional delegation” trips.

I want to be in Congress because, whether the Democrats win or we lose, someone has to do his best to get good things done.

Because that’s what it’s all about.

That makes more of a case to vote for him than an e-mail that says "I need you to contribute before midnight's deadline," don't you think? E-mails like that are disrespectful and usually cause me to unsubscribe from the candidate's list.

The dumbest e-mail I got today came from Republican majority whip, Steve Scalise (R-LA). I'm glad to see it isn't only Democrats who write this kind of repulsive garbage to their grassroots. Does this make you want to throw up? Most e-mails from establishment Democrats are just as bad-- exactly just as bad; only the cast of characters change:

Now Bernie's e-mail from yesterday. It goes along with this video he made about Medicare-for-All:



This explains why Bernie should be the Democratic nominee in 2020 and why congressional candidates who don't pussyfoot around with "but we should fix Obamacare first" should be our nominees. Bernie's e-mail, starts with the assertion that "our ideas are winning," something that drives the establishments of both political parties-- and the donors who underwrite the careers of their leaders-- up the wall.

Earlier this week, a Koch brothers-sponsored study shared widely with the corporate media tried to scare people into thinking Medicare for all would be too expensive for our country.

But what the study did was show that Medicare for all would actually save the American people $2 trillion over 10 years. And it would do so while providing health care for 30 million Americans who don’t have it today and eliminating premiums, deductibles and co-payments to private health insurance companies.

Sounds like a good deal to me.

So I want to thank the Koch brothers. I do not think their study had its intended effect.

This year, more candidates than ever before are campaigning on the idea that health care should be a right for every man, woman and child in this country, and not a privilege. They are campaigning on that issue not just in places like New York and Vermont, but in Kansas, Texas, and states traditionally thought of as “red” and “purple.”

And I intend to support them, because they are sure to face unlimited sums of money from the insurance and drug companies, from Wall Street and the Koch brothers and from all those fighting to protect their profits and the status quo.

...Medicare for all is an idea that's time has come.

This is no longer a “radical” or a “fringe” idea. The last poll I saw showed that it is an idea supported by 63 percent of the American people.

And why?

Because people understand that the function of a rational health care system in this country should be to provide quality care for everyone in a cost-effective way, not to make health industry CEOs richer or drive up stock prices on Wall Street.

Let me also be clear that a Medicare-for-all, single-payer health care system will increase wages and expand employment by lifting a major financial weight off of the businesses burdened by employee health expenses.

Americans who are currently in jobs they don't like but must stay put because of health care access would be free to explore more productive opportunities as they desire. That is real freedom.

Today the United States remains the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all while spending more per capita than any other nation. If every major country on earth can do it, please do not tell me the United States cannot.

So I am going to spend the rest of the year campaigning not just for my re-election, but for candidates who agree with us on this issue.

In this pivotal moment in American history, we must go forward to guarantee health care as a right and not a privilege. This is a struggle not just about health care but about the heart and soul of our country, about what we stand for as a people. And it is a struggle we are winning.

Good campaign e-mails tell what candidates are going to do for you, not just what they want from you. I love the way Bernie signs his letters too: "In solidarity." And then this:

How Toxic Would Trump Be Campaigning For House Republicans In Swing District?

Read any of that stuff about how most Democratic candidates don't want the Clintons campaigning for them? Reactionary Democrats like Andrew Cuomo (NY) and Dianne Feinstein (CA) are exceptions; they love the idea of Hillary. (New York scold Kirsten Gillibrand-- who had been proud to run racist advertising against Latinos when she was in the House, is telling the media that "Bill Clinton should have resigned the presidency after his inappropriate relationship with an intern came to light nearly 20 years ago." Democratic senators in tough campaigns Claire McCaskill (MO) and Heidi Heitkamp (ND) went out of their way to very publicly tell Hillary to stay away.

Democratic candidates would also appreciate Nancy Pelosi to not make any public appearances in their districts. Republicans-- especially Republicans in swing districts-- feel the same way about Paul Ryan. And when Ryan does show up to wrangle big checks out of multimillionaires and billionaires he does it quietly and away from the media. Same with McConnell. McConnell, in fact, is the most unpopular politician in America-- and not just among Democrats. Republican voters have him too.

Democrats want Bernie campaigning for them in their districts. And Elizabeth Warren. And Randy @IronStache Bryce. Others we hear Democrat candidates requesting are Keith Ellison and the members of Congress who are on MSNBC a lot, like Ted Lieu, Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell.

What about Trump? Of course swing district Democrats would do anything to get him campaigning in their districts with their opponents. Yesterday Bryce's sassy campaign manager, David Keith told me that "We welcome the day Trump comes, as it'll greatly help us engage with those working families who have been left behind and are ready to stand up and fight. Bernie came to talk about hope and lift the working people up. Trump will come-- and while he'll argue he's doing the same-- and simply lie on behalf of the big corporations looking to ship jobs oversees. It's a slap in the face to working people on behalf of Ryan's job-exporting driver and/or Paul Nehlen, the Nazi... and the working people will know it."

Sunday, McClatchey ran a piece by Katie Glueck about how House Republicans are refusing to even answer questions about Trump coming to their districts. Of course, in deep red districts, filled with low-IQ Republicans and few normal people-- like districts represented by fascists Mo Brooks (AL), Matt Gaetz (FL), Louie Gohmert (TX), Jim Jordan (OH) and Liz Cheney (WY)-- they'd roll out the red carpet for Señor Trumpanzee-- and any of the cast of characters around him. One Republican in a deep red district that Trump won with nearly 70% told me-- obviously on condition of anonymity that it would make his skin crawl to do a rally with Trump but that his constituents like Trump more than they like him, so he'd do it in a second. "I'd have to take a hot shower afterwards, of course," he said, giggling.

DuWayne Gregory is in a tough Long Island district where Trump beat Hillary 53.0% to 43.9%. But he knows a Trump visit is going to motivate Democrats and independent voters in a way that isn't going to help incumbent Peter King. "The people of the 2nd Congressional District, he told me, "are still recovering from Donald Trump’s last visit when he encouraged police officers to rough up suspects. This community doesn’t need anymore of his division. We are a community united to fight against his bigotry against immigrants and Paul Ryan and Peter King’s lack of leadership in standing up for what is right." Right now DuWayne is putting together a rally with a respected-- even beloved-- Democrat in his district. It's a surprise though, so I can't tell yet. Trump also won in the Oklahoma district Tom Guild is running in. Guild told us he "would enthusiastically welcome Bernie coming to Oklahoma to support our campaign. I’ll leave it up to Mr. Russell to decide if he wants Mr. Trump to appear on his behalf in 2018." Levi Tillemann is the progressive Democrat running in the Denver suburbs against GOP stooge Mike Coffman. "According to the polling we’ve done," he told me, "Trump is actually more popular than Coffman in the district. So I guess Coffman would probably embrace the opportunity. If there’s one thing we learned over the years it’s that Mike Coffman flows like water towards political expediency."

The question of whether endangered GOP candidates want President Donald Trump to campaign with them sparked dodges, lengthy pauses and a cascade of caveats in interviews with about two dozen GOP House members who are facing varying degrees of competition in races this fall.

But the answer several Republicans from tough districts have settled on is, sure-- if Trump will campaign on their terms.


“It depends,” said Fitzpatrick, a Republican from a suburban Philadelphia district that Democrats are targeting. “On what issue is he campaigning for me? If he campaigns on term limits-- I just met with him on that. If he’s able to get public support behind it, absolutely.”

But would a campaign rally be helpful? “We’ll see, we’ll see what our schedule is looking like,” he said, getting into an elevator at the Capitol.

Rep. David Valadao of California, whose district Hillary Clinton won by nearly 16 percentage points, offered a similar calculation: “If it’s a topic like water or something positive on immigration that actually benefits us-- I think if the president of the United States wants to come to the district to highlight something that’s actually helpful to the district, I think it would make sense, but it depends on the topic.”

And Miami-area Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo, who represents the most Democratic-leaning district in the country held by a Republican running for reelection this year, suggested he would welcome Trump's help-- if he "supports my work."


"I’m not asking nor have I ever asked anyone to come down and campaign, I don’t need it from anyone,” said Curbelo, who is leading an effort to force votes on immigration-related bills, rankling House conservatives. “The conditions for anyone to support me, to campaign for me, is that they support my work and are helping me achieve it for the benefit of the country."

Midterm elections are often challenging for the president’s party, and the question of where polarizing presidents can campaign tends to be a fraught one. It’s a reality that has applied to a range of leaders including Presidents George W. Bush in 2006 and Barack Obama in 2010 and 2014, when beleaguered candidates from their respective parties were loathe to make joint appearances or offer public praise.


...“It might help get out the base who might not be as fervently for a candidate such as myself,” said retiring GOP Rep. Ryan Costello, who currently represents another Philadelphia-area suburban district Clinton won. “I think, though, it would be a reminder, negatively, to swing voters who view him unfavorably but who I would want to have respond to my message of being an independent check-and-balance.”


...Still, the majority of candidates McClatchy interviewed said they would be open to Trump on their trail-- though their enthusiasm in answering that question, and the level of detail they provided in their responses, swung wildly.

“Yeah, I've encouraged every president, every president, to come to my district,” Rep. Jeff Denham of California said after pausing for a few seconds. Like Valadao, who also represents the Central Valley, Denham then turned back to local issues, referencing a water controversy. “To have our president come to take a look at our water being shut off, at our communities being devastated, that is something I would definitely support."

Westside Congressman Ted Lieu, the regional vice chair of the DCCC-- and the only competent person working for the organization-- cut right to the chase when I asked him how he'd feel about Trump coming to Orange County or the Central Valley to campaign for the embattled and vulnerable Republican incumbents in those two areas. This is what he told me: "I sincerely hope Trump shows up in California to campaign for Republican congressional candidates here. The DCCC is going to spend a lot of money tying Trump to these candidates, and this would make the job that much easier. I would gladly pay the permit fee for Trump to show up in California to do one of his toxic rallies. It would be super awesome for Democrats if Californians can see Trump unleashed. It would be even better if Trump brought Scot Pruitt and Ted Nugent with him and went full MAGA. Trump's xenophobic and bigoted rallies will jack up Democratic turnout and horrify independents in California."


...Doug Heye, a former communications director for the Republican National Committee, said it was one thing for candidates in competitive seats to voice enthusiasm for a Trump visit. It’s another thing entirely to actually pursue one.

“They’ve got to take care of their base,” he said. “If you’re telling your base, ‘I don’t want Trump to come,’ you run the risk of being judged by that, and having people unhappy and everything that comes along with that. … I think it’s a different issue when it comes to actual campaigning. I think we’ll see Trump in really red places more than anywhere else.”

But Texas Rep. Pete Sessions, who represents a district Clinton won, beamed when asked if he would want Trump to show up in his suburban Dallas district. He answered in the affirmative before a reporter finished asking the question.

"Awesome, I welcome him with open arms," Sessions said. "Can you invite him for me?"

The progressive running for the Dallas-area seat, TX-32, Sessions is occupying, Lillian Salerno, told me yesterday that she "would not be surprised if the President campaigned for one of the most reliable yes men. After all, Congressman Sessions was instrumental in helping the President nearly get away with taking health care coverage from 22 million Americans. That's devotion. The reason I ran was precisely because we need to win this seat in order to help hold Trump accountable. Trump and the rigged  system know that they must remain in power to continue the fraud on the American people. This means control of Congress. I am in this race to make sure the corporate Democrat doesn’t win and I am on the ballot to beat Sessions."

Ron Brownstein, reporting for CNN, noted this morning that as Trump's daily "bombshells detonate, sometimes within hours of each other, congressional Republican leaders then react with little more than a shrug. Even more important, the vast majority of the Republican electoral coalition increasingly responds the same way... The elimination of any distance between Trump and the conventional Republican interests that controlled the party before him has happened so incrementally it can be difficult to discern from day to day. But it remains one of the central political dynamics of 2018. Over the long term, Trump's success at stamping his polarizing brand on the GOP remains a huge electoral gamble for the party because it risks alienating the young, well-educated and diverse groups growing, rather than shrinking, in the electorate. But in the near-term, the GOP's choice to ally so unequivocally with such a unique president may have the paradoxical effect of producing a much more conventional midterm election than seemed possible earlier this year."

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.)

2018-- Getting Voters Off Their Couches Will Be A Real Trick, Trump Or No Trump

-by Tom Sullivan

Off-year mobilization is tough anytime. But while Democrats here in North Carolina still have a statewide registration edge, unaffiliated voter registration is spiking. Getting voters to turn out will be especially challenging in 2018 because there will be no national or statewide races in North Carolina. Neither U.S. Senate seat is on the ballot in 2018. Congressional races will be the top of the ticket in the state's 13 famously gerrymandered districts. Republicans hold 10 out of the 13 seats. Fair redistricting in 2021 could make the rest more competitive for Democrats. But that means winning very local state House and Senate races to which many voters pay little attention.

Winning U.S. House seats here may help Democrats in Washington, but it won't do much for us in North Carolina unless those districts overlap state House and Senate seats where Democrats can field competitive legislative candidates who might benefit from coattails.

Getting volunteers and voters off their couches statewide will be a real trick, Trump or no Trump. Democrats prone to focusing globally on national and statewide races struggle when it is time to focus granularly on smaller districts. In rural ones where many legislative seats lie, county teams can be less experienced at campaign tech. And because party focus is always on short-term wins, there are never resources for longer-term infrastructure-building.

It is a perennial complaint in progressive circles that Democrats slack sufficient infrastructure for winning independent of having rock-star candidates to draw interest, donations, and volunteers. It's true. When a Barack Obama comes along with limitless money and boisterous volunteers, Democrats are hard to beat. The problem, however, is that campaign infrastructure appears overnight and disappears just as quickly when campaigns pull up stakes. If they show up at all where you live, state and national campaign teams expect to call the shots, leave little behind except unused office supplies, and state parties (as best I can tell) focus on immediate get-out-the-vote needs only, and then primarily in cities where the largest blocks of blue votes are. In 2-4 years, we start again from scratch.

Rural counties where big campaigns don't go are left to fend for themselves with little direction except in organizing precincts and pulling walk/phone lists. You'd go blue in the face holding your breath waiting for the cavalry to arrive with additional resources. And those places are where the state House and Senate seats are that Democrats need to win to flip state legislatures across the country.

Our county has the only Democratic state representatives and state senator west of Charlotte. What has made us successful is having campaign infrastructure that persists beyond Election Day. We built a progressive team. We have a plan. We know our jobs. We train our replacements. When one leadership team ages out, the next is ready to go. Know-how isn’t lost when the old team steps aside (and we do) to make room for younger blood. That inspires confidence in both volunteers and donors. When we ask prospective candidates to run for office, they have confidence we have their backs all the way to Election Day. When volunteer vans rolled in here last fall from Nashville and Memphis the weekend ahead of the election, Tennessee vols said they'd never seen anything like it. Not the first time I've heard that.

Volunteers persist year-round here. I left on August 9th to drive to Atlanta for Netroots Nation. I stopped by our party office on the way out of town. There were several cars in the parking lot. There were maybe 10 people inside doing organizing work in two different offices.

On a Wednesday.
In the middle of the day.
In August.
In an off-year with no federal or state races here.

That says something about the vitality of our team. The sad thing is it is so rare.

We build experience with each election cycle. To win here, we don't need marching orders from national campaigns that parachute in every four years. We sit them down and tell them how we expect them to work with us to elect their candidates and ours down-ticket. Imagine if every county in every state had that permanent foundation.

So I wrote a primer for teaching under-resourced counties typically not on the cutting edge of digital tech how to build an effective field campaign. It is intended for county-level party officers, not professional campaign geeks. No theory. No targeting. No messaging. It is not a magic bullet or magic beans that become a tower overnight, just teaching people how to put their pants on one leg at a time and tie their shoelaces, in that order. This is what Howard Dean meant the 50-state strategy to do, to build infrastructure from the bottom up, not from the top down.

For The Win is the field-tested nuts-and-bolts of how local parties can organize and coordinate a months-long, countywide effort to help national, state, and local campaigns win. On a shoestring. If it's in there, we've done it here. Sixty-six conversational pages, plus free tools and simple Office templates. They don't teach this at Wellstone. Over the next 6-7 months I hope to be exporting what we know to points east in my state. I'll be issuing an update in March for 2018.

We launched the online portion of this effort at Digby's place at the end of July. Requests come mostly from red states and red areas of blue states. So far I've had over 60 requests from Democratic activists (mostly) in 27 states, including from state party officers in a couple.

Because political campaigns are not just contests of ideas. They are contests of skills.

Can I get an Amen?



* * * * * * * *

Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer, at tom.bluecentury at gmail.