MythBusters is a fun, informative show on the Discovery Channel. I figured it might be nice to bring a little of that here.
Misinformation and myth-making lead to uninformed opinions, and there are some things that have floated around the blogosphere for way too long. It's not helpful, and I think that debunking some of these myths will help people understand some political dynamics better. You may not like those dynamics but understanding them is key to changing them.
So in the spirit of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (who said "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts") let's get on with a few of the netroots' favorite myths and misinformation. This edition focuses on myths relating to campaigns.
Myth: ActBlue is a total netroots resource! Money to ActBlue means money going to progressives!
Reality: It's an important tool for the netroots but also used by candidates as their fundraising software.
ActBlue is awesome, but remember that the money that has been raised through the ActBlue website isn't all "netroots" (defined as active progressive bloggers).
Campaigns have used BSD, NGP and other fundraising software for their online fundraising. They can also use ActBlue. Candidates link directly to ActBlue, and people who donate to candidates thru the candidate's website don't necessarily overlap with the netroots. Therefore, when ActBlue says it's raised $120 million since 2004, not all of that is attributed to the netroots. If the netroots were actually responsible for all that money, then, y'all would be much happier with the party.
An example: A friend managed a targeted federal race last cycle. The campaign used ActBlue as their clearinghouse for donations. The candidate won and is currently in Congress. Said member of Congress is a moderate and was not the progressive choice in the primary (though this member is by no means as much of a problem as the usual targets of progressive outrage).
Myth: Direct mail fundraising is worthless and so are fundraising canvasses. Go online, campaigns!
Reality: There's value in non-online fundraising, and don't assume that everyone is comfortable with donating over the internet.
Grassroots fundraising includes online fundraising, direct mail fundraising and door-to-door fundraising.
- Online fundraising is obviously cheapest and most efficient, and will continue to grow in importance.
- Direct mail fundraising is still important as there are some people who will not give money over the internet (and some who quite frankly couldn't tell you how to turn on a computer). In addition, the messaging in the direct mail will reinforce messaging that the recipient is getting in other avenues (e.g. TV ads, earned media coverage, etc.) There may be a point in the future where direct mail fundraising is obsolete, but we're not there yet.
- Door-to-door fundraising is labor intensive and seems like a waste of time, money and energy. Believe it or not, there are organizations that raise quite a bit of money this way. Even if the fundraising isn't that hot door-to-door, it's not a complete waste, because an organization can use this opportunity to refine voter lists and do IDs (candidate support and/or issue) in the process. Those IDs and the data gathered is important. You can also test messaging while going door-to-door raising money. Again, believe it or not, there are some who will donate to someone at the door but won't donate online. Moreover, really good door-to-door fundraisers can be hard to say no to.
Myth: The longer the live call script, the better
Reality: Depends on who is doing the calling and the reason for the call.
A live call is when an actual person is calling (as opposed to a robocall).
If you're sending a request to a broad email list, the shorter the call script, the better. Longer scripts and extensive talking points discourage volunteers (especially those who are newer to political activism) and mean fewer calls.
When doing volunteer GOTV calls and persuasion calls, the script needs to be just long enough so that the caller can get all the relevant information (e.g. candidate support, likelihood of voting, willingness to volunteer, etc.) If it's a persuasion call, campaigns will supplement the basic script with additional talking points that callers can use if they wish.
When getting people to call legislators (be it local, state or federal), the script needs to be general enough so that when people call, they can add their own personal reasons for supporting/opposing legislation. The calls are more organic that way, and if an office is getting a lot of calls from what seem to be people who aren't normally involved in activism, sometimes there's greater weight given to them.
Paid phonebanking is a little different. I've seen persuasion scripts/talking points be several pages long. There's training involved when it comes to doing these calls.
Myth: All that matters in a poll is if the respondents support a policy/candidate or not.
Reality: Intensity of support and elevating an issue is just as important.
Voters tend to vote based on the three most important issues for them; sometimes the top issue just completely trumps everything else. Elevating an issue (making it a bigger topic of discussion in the news, in campaign materials, and at the watercooler) is as important as what someone's views are on an issue. Environmentalists have been frustrated over the years when polls showed the public overwhelmingly say that protecting the environment is important, yet if you give voters a list of 10 issues and ask them to rank them in importance, a lot of voters will rank the environment dead last. It's why environmentalists and conservationists have been tying pro-environment policies to the economy, which is something that most people would rank higher than the environment.
Examples of the Effect of Elevating an Issue:
- We saw the difference elevating an issue made in 2004, when Bush was able to convince a significant number of voters that even though he wasn't with them on bread and butter issues, that he'd keep them safe. There were voters who thought, it doesn't matter if I have Social Security in 20 years, if I'm killed by a terrorist.
- Elevating an issue that Democrats poll better on than Republicans is a good thing. In 2008, there were people who normally voted Republican but found themselves with an underwater mortgage and went Dem; it didn't matter if they didn't agree with Democratic policies on many issues -- it was the economy that was the deciding factor.
Some Tactics Used to Elevate an Issue (and Making Sure It Stays as a Priority):
- An ad. The issue of national security in 2004 was elevated by the Bush campaign (which knew that national security needed to be a major factor in the campaign for him to win.) So ads that get a lot of attention can elevate an issue (or in the case of the Wolf ad in 2004, make sure that voters go into the voting booth thinking about national security.)
- An earned media story. Leaking opposition research to the media and pitching stories is another way to elevate an issue whether it's something like the economy or something that is more of a character issue.
There's always a piece of legislation or an issue that has support or is facing opposition. But how intense is that support or opposition? Why does intensity matter?
- For some people there is an issue that is so important to them that even if it's not an issue that is not elevated, that issue is what those people will vote on. Abortion & choice is an example. There are people who liked everything about Obama and were having trouble finding a job, but because they were anti-choice, they "couldn't" vote for him. On the other hand, you had pro-choicers who weren't wild about Obama but never considered McCain who is anti-choice.
- Another way of looking at it: Sometimes you'll find polls that say 65% of Americans support policy X, and you'll find politicians slow to move on the issue. Well, 65% may support policy X but most of that 65% don't consider it a priority; it may also be that the 35% in opposition are really exercised about the policy. They don't just oppose a policy; they really, really, really oppose it. It's a dealbreaker for them.
- A lot of times polls will look at approval/disapproval ratings for a politician. It's important to note how much someone approves or disapproves of someone. The easiest way to think about it is that those who strongly approve or disapprove are not movable. They're not going to budge no matter what you do. But those who somewhat approve or disapprove are persuadable and messages are tailored to them.
Myth: Based on this ad, it's obvious that the whole ad campaign is crap.
Reality: Don't judge an ad campaign just by a single ad.
Obviously, individual ads need to be done well, but judging an ad campaign based on one or two ads is generally not the way to go. A lot of times ads build on each other. You make an argument on the economy against a candidate in different ways in different ads, and the closing argument ad will run through all those points. It's important to factor in if the ads are reinforcing each other message-wise.
Moreover, in bigger and longer campaigns, you can convey consistency and authenticity if the tone and content (visual & verbal) is consistent. It might not be conscious, but sometimes it's not about specific soundbites but about the overall impression that you get when surrounded by all the campaign hubbub.
OK, that's all I have for now. If anyone has any other myths, feel free to post below.
Other backgrounders of mine on various aspects of campaigns and the progressive landscape:
- An overview of the progressive landscape & the importance of coalitions
- The Democratic Base & How Demographics Can Tell Us What & How Voters Think
- A Guide to Some Progressive Organizations: Who They Are, What They Do