Category Archives: Campaign Tactics & Analysis

Every campaign cycle has the obligatory “guys who run campaigns” story, that usually is little more than a resume of each “guy” with anecdotes. From reading these kinds of stories, you’d think the reporters just buy a “Mad Libs” pad and insert (name of politico) in (year of story) and (write it like that).
The LA Times did its obligatory piece on Friday the 13th (ha!) While these are of mild interest, nothing in them tells the reader anything they ddid not already know, or hear, the last time these pieces were written.
Each “bigwig” got their name, their age, a paragraph about their past work, a few quippy lines, and that’s about it. Great. I read this and wonder just what it is I, the reader, am supposed to learn from this article? There’s no real questioning about what it is these guys have been doing this cycle, nor is there any real discussion about what their role is, and is not in this campaign cycle.
It serves to reinforce preconceived notions of these guys as something they’re not, and we don’t get any real examination of the role of people who play an important part in how and why we discuss the election in the terms we usually do.
It’d be far more informative if we had a reporter or two (or three) as a guy like Kam Kuwata how he can say some of the things he does with a straight face, and expect people to take him at his word based on what’s been said as Hahn’s spokesman this cycle, for example.
It might be interesting to talk to someone like Ace Smith, and as for a macro-level discussion on just what “opposition research” is and is not in a campaign like Villaraigosa’s. Or even better, ask some of these guys about the campaigns they’ve lose (i.e. Bill Carrick’s loss with Rep. Dick “Screamer” Gephardt” ) and what they’ve learned (if anything) from the experience. Even better, call up Sen. Dianne Feinstein and ask her what she thinks of some of Hahn’s tactics in 2005 – and how that’ll affect her decisions in 2006?
The biggest problem with the political consulting business is that for the most part it is a largely unexamined piece of the advertising business. True, there have been some excellent studies done by James Thurber at American University, and occasionally you read a decent article somewhere. But overall, it is an industry without much serious discussion, which is unfortunate.
Switching gears, there was another story, the obligatory “let’s do a piece about the underlings who work on these things” piece in the main Los Angeles papers. I’m surprised no one noticed how the Los Angeles Times article, which appeared on May 14th, was almost identical to one that the Los Angeles Daily News ran on May 8th.
More importantly, it raises a basic question – are so few people working on the respective campaigns of Jimi Hahn and Tony Villaraigosa that these are the only two underlings that were worth spending any ink on? Might there be some people, perhaps some actually from Los Angeles, the press could have talked to?
Personally, when I read accounts like this of why some young people get into politics, or talk to younger folks, I tend to wince when I hear someone describe themselves as a “political junkie,” and seem to thrive only on the game itself, and for no other reason.
Years ago, I met Tom Hayden at UC Santa Barbara, and he said something to a group of us assembled to learn more about getting involved in the political process. Basically he said (and please bear with the paraphrasing of an event I attended 16 years ago) that young people should pursue whatever it is they believe in or wish to advance, and use the Democratic Party and the political process to achieve their goals as they see fit, and not just become a party apparatchnik for the sake of “politics.”
It was a lesson worth learning, and one, I’m afraid did not reach too many people in the room. However, it’s something these young guns on the Hahn and Villairaigosa campaigns would be wise to heed. The “thrill of the game” ends quickly, and you have to decide on some level what it is you are trying to really accomplish.
It’s easy to become so consumed with polls, swing votes, percentages, and focus groups, forgetting in the process that if you’re not really focused on accomplishing something, you end up looking back at your “career” in politics and find you’ve spent a lot of money, done a lot of neat campaign tricks, but have little to show for it.
To me that’s not very satisfying, but then again, I’ve been in this line of work for a while. I suppose for some others, like the aforementioned Big Wigs of Politics, that’s all that seems to matter. I guess I’ll never know, since all I have to go on are those “Mad Libs” style puff pieces in the Times.
Anyone want to prove me wrong?
PS: Here’s a fun story for some enterprising reporter to consider: Take a look at the many talented people who got some of their early start with Tom Hayden’s Campaign for Economic Democracy in the late 70s and early 80s.
A quick review of the folks who got their start with Hayden and Jane Fonda’s organization would be a Who’s Who of some of the smartest people in politics today, many of whom have retained some sense of idealism or political leanings since their days with CED. I could print a partial list here, but I would not want to insult anyone by accidentally leaving them off the list. Still, it would be interesting.
I’ve often felt that the repeated demonization of Hayden by conservatives obscured many of his actual accomplishments in the public eye. Remember, it was Hayden, in retirement, who shut down Gov. Doofinator’s attempts to change pet rescue las by unleashing the power of a network of  pet owners and their army of Pound Puppies to smack down the Doofinator, and send him in full retreat.
I’ll be looking….Reporters, start your engines!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

I’m trying to find some kind soul out there who subscribes to the Economist Magazine. It seems that I got quoted in this article about campaign paraphenalia in their April 28th issue.
However, I can’t read the web version because one has to subscribe to the magazine first to read it. So…if any of you kind readers out there already have a subscription and wouldn’t mind helping the Schädelmann out with a free look or something so I can read it, that would be cool.
AND…if you help me, I’ll reward you with…a free song from the Apple iTunes store as a thank-you.
I had spoken with their reporter a while back but hadn’t had a chance to track down a print issue before the local newsstand ran out.
I was not really sure if they’d even use my quote, until I heard about it from my friend Dr. O’Sullivan, a Fulbright Scholar in Amman, Jordan, who happened to read it and was quite surprised to see my name in print in that particular magazine.
All for the greater glory of my ego, I know. But it was some much-needed good news after what was kind of a crappy week.
UPDATE! My good friend Mark Rutherford, a subscriber to The Economist gave me a copy of the article, which I will reprint here for you…Thanks Mark!
HOT AIR
Apr 28th 2005
Why political accessories are changing
IN GENERAL elections past, the political temperature of a British street could be taken by looking at the windows. Candidates’ posters–blue for the Conservatives, red for Labour, orange for the Liberal Democrats–marked the positions of rival camps more precisely than any voter database. But allegiances are less obvious this year. Particularly in Labour-held areas, there is often little sign that an
election is about to take place.
“People don’t want to parade their political preferences any more,” says David Heyes, who is defending his seat in Ashton-under-Lyne. Political cynicism, unmoving opinion polls and flaccid national campaigns are partly to blame for the lack of colour in the constituencies. But a bigger reason is that the focus of campaigning
has moved from the street to the telephone and the letterbox.
Better data management by the major parties means that potential voters can be identified and targeted more accurately than in the past, and from a greater distance. Printing is cheaper and faster; more importantly, digital presses can run off messages aimed at specific voters. The results can appear devious. Humphrey Malins, a Conservative candidate in Surrey, produced one leaflet, in English and Urdu, that touted his record of helping with visas. But another leaflet advertised the party’s tough anti-immigrant line. “My local literature is intended to be very local,” Mr Malins explained.

Like so many political innovations, this is an American import. Greg Dewar, a political marketing consultant who has worked for several Democratic candidates, says that direct mail has become the best way of communicating with voters–a lesson that, as he admits, Republicans have learned especially well. The effect on old-style political paraphernalia has been the same as in Britain. As American campaigns have gone postal (and, much more tentatively, online), buttons and lawn
signs have disappeared.

Oddly, one traditional tool has survived the winnowing: the campaign balloon. Labour candidates, in particular, can often be found lurking outside school gates handing out balloons and “Dear Parent” letters to children. Lawrie Quinn, who is campaigning in Scarborough and Whitby, remembers organising only two such events during the 2001 election campaign. He has done 14 so far this year, and makes sure always to carry a few spare balloons in his back pocket, just in case. The idea is to reach young women–some of the main beneficiaries of Labour largesse, but also some of the greatest gripers against Tony Blair–through their less politically jaded offspring.
Such is the theory, anyway. At a recent school-gate event in Putney, a west London constituency, children were delighted to accept helium-filled propaganda. But the warmth of the day meant that the little nippers got only a few yards before a bang and a howl of anguish announced the beginnings of political discontent.

A recent article in the Knight Ridder Chain reports that Emily’s List is worried about the prospect of “losing” women in state government, thanks in part to term limits.
They point the finger at all sorts of factors, but fail to realize as they point the finger at others, four more are pointing back…at Emily’s List, as well as the whole self-appointed Women’s Political Mafia that has evolved over the last 20 years.
Remember the “Year of the Woman” in 1992? We were supposed to ooh and ahh at all the women getting elected to office. Groups like Emily’s List, which once operated out of basements in Washington DC moved into the spotlight, as they helped underdog women candidates with early money, and provided support to their campaigns to try and “level the playing field” for (liberal) women candidates.
Which is fine. Many great people got elected to office, including my perennial favorite, Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn of Washington State (whom I count as a friend and former client). And I’m all for a level playing field so that the best candidate wins, based on merit, not on bullshit, even though I really tire of “identity politics” and the crap such phony baloney brings on in our system. That’s another column.
Back to the point: The problem is, after 1992, Emily’s List became as much a part of The Problem in Politics as it was once The Answer. Once the secret weapon of underdog candidates, it quickly evolved into an incumbent protection system for women elected in the early 1990s.
A few years in the corridors of power during that brief time in the Clinton Administration when “Democrats” (real and corporate) ran everything, and suddenly Emily’s List was no longer interested in taking chances with women running for Congress, or elsewhere. It was All About Protecting The Small Gains instead.
So while a wealthy Corporate Sponsored Democrat like Jane Harman (D-Venice Beach) or another millionaire, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) could count on Emily’s List to beat the drum for their candidacies, other women could not. And if two women ran against each other? They’d stay out. Rather than try and make a decision as to who the best candidate would be, they’d sit it out. Usually the corporate PAC money backed candidate won in those cases.
As the 1990s wore on and the GOP gains in 1994 clearly weren’t going away, Emily’s List and other similar “mainstream” women’s groups spent more time in Washington DC, still pretending to be in power, when in fact they were getting their asses kicked. Sure, Senator Boxer won in a landslide. But guess what? They’re passing all sorts of legislation these women’s groups claim to be against in the US Senate. And I didn’t see Emily’s List taking many chances in the Congressional or US Senate races this time around.
Most people don’t know that the majority of my clients have been women clients, primarily by accident or referral, but nonetheless I’ve ended up on the side of underdog women candidates more than once, mostly because I’m good at what I do and I’m not nearly as nasty as I seem in print.
So I’ve seen first hand the kind of shenanigans I describe, and there is nothing more sad than having to tell a client the reason they’re not going to get the support of some Big Women’s Political Group has nothing to do with their campaign’s strength, their stand on the issues, or the years of hard work volunteering for said causes, but instead a back door deal cut by interest group leaders and Corporate Democrat leadership types.
Even on a local level, “women’s political groups” often make decisions based more on the politics of accommodating power, instead of standing up for the people (women) and politics they claim to believe in. Last year, while working in San Francisco in the supervisorial races, I was astonished to watch local women’s political groups endorse men in races where supremely qualified women were running.
Here I was, in a supposed bastion of liberalism and feminism, with a plethora of well-qualified candidates running for office – people like Christine Linnenbach who came damn close to winning the election – lose out on endorsements to lesser qualified men, from women’s groups.
It was stunning. Here was an intelligent, thoughtful and highly qualified candidate with hundreds of endorsements, losing out to a no-name man, just because of some civic politicking that had nothing to do with helping women get elected, and more to do with sucking up to The Man. Great job, girls For an encore, why don’t they just give up, and put on some aprons and let all the men do the hard work?
Harsh? Yes, but so is seeing the cynicism of these kinds of groups at work. I like to make a note, and the next time I hear some local self designated Arbiter of What Women Think from these politicos, I take it about as seriously as a crank email from a nut like Hal Netkin or Jimi Hahn.
If Emily’s List, and the many other members of the Women’s Political Mafia are truly concerned about the status of liberal women in the political world, they’ll take their heads out of the sand, and their hands out of the pockets of corporate Democrat incumbents and go back to the reason they were founded in the first place.
Local and national women’s groups need to stop licking the boots of male corporate politicians and assert themselves a little more. Sure it may be risky, and they may have to go to some new sources of funding since the credit card PACS might not like them.
But if they don’t, they’re going to remain a part of the problem with the political system, and not a solution. I, for one, won’t take them too seriously when they make their latest complaint, knowing that when they’ve had the chance, too often they chose status quo power over real change.
UPDATE: Emerge, yet another groups that purports to be about helping women get elected had a big fundraiser in San Francisco with Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, who, apparently, used to live in the Bay Area.
Great PR for the group, and always a lot of talk, and the interviews with the up and coming “new leaders.” But of course, most of the talk at the event was How We Gotta Help Dianne Feinstein, and support the impossible prospect of a Granholm for President campiagn. (The Governor is unable to run for president, as she is not a native born US Citizen). But hey, it makes for good PR and makes people “feel good.”
But watch how fast the power-suited women in the room help their young charges when they run for office in the future. Funny how most of the people in that fundraiser were the same ones who time after time, hold back on helping women candidates when they don’t fit the  status quo.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

As promised, we have one last posting from our guest blogger Favel Stoda, who was kind enough to post to my site from a “swing state” with her observations on the scene. When I write up the book of Campaign 2004, Favel is one of my “rock stars” I talk about…”
Well, it looks like it’s over except maybe in Iowa or New Mexico.  We won’t know for two more days about the 28,000 Provisional ballots but the optimist in me thinks that the dems will prevail and I’ll begin to feel a little better.
I don’t know if it will make many of you feel any better but I wanted to share some of what I saw the last few days of the election as a ground troop.  In the final days of the elections, thousands and thousands of people flew themselves to various parts of the country (aka swing states) to help get out the vote.  A few hundred came to the Northern New Mexico area and I think I met most of them.  Thousands of New Mexico residents were already volunteering and even more joined them- there were people of all ages, races, and religions all working on a common cause-getting rid of
Bush.  
On my third day there, I was given the charge of  feeding the volunteers in the Santa Fe area for the final GOTV days and election day. My committee was comprised of seven local women of various ages, one guy in his 30’s, two women in their twenties from Austin, TX and a male doctor from San Diego.  We had quite an exciting challenge on how to feed them all but somehow we did it and I must say it was rather biblical (you know the story about Jesus and some bread and fish).   Santa Fe residents and businesses donated money and food to help us out and if any of you get the chance-try
some Chicken Posale (it’s wonderful on a cold day). Late on Sunday afternoon, 24 pizzas arrived just as a hundred volunteers returned from canvassing.
It was very exciting and as I talked with local residents many were also caught up in the fever of early voting and campaigning at many different levels ( I had predicted that 50 % of Northern New Mexico would vote and I was pretty damn close.). Until midnight on Tuesday, I really felt like we
were going to win-especially after I heard our returns in Nambe (look it up sometime).  It was wonderfully exhilerating to be a part of the effort to get the most people ever to the polls and vote but on November 3rd I really felt like what was the point.  What I find most disheartening, is that it was hate and anger that drove so many of us to the poll…but I must be honest with all of you because it was anger at Bush that made me get involved, too.
In my last (and only) posting, I put out a challenge to everyone to stay involved after the election and I’ll share with you how I’m going to stay involved.  There needs to be some serious election reform and I’m going to start on the lowest level.  I heard and saw many stupid errors at the polls. Election volunteers not crossing off names as people came to vote, my mom was in charge of her precinct and the first few pages of her voter rolls weren’t included and so anyone with a last name beginning with an A or B had to get a provisional ballot, precincts ran out of provisional ballots, people were sent to wrong polling stations and the list goes on and on….
Also, why the heck do we still have an electoral college?  When the U.S. goes to war with other countries to bring them democracy we don’t force them to have an electoral college…..I think it’s time we reconsider it and really let each of us have one true vote.  Maybe I’ll get involved with that project.
I’m also going to continue sending care packages to our troops and if you pray, please say a prayer for them and their families.  On Sunday, I’ll rejoin my Veterans for Peace” friends at the Santa Monica pier and if you
live in the area stop by and say hi or better yet help us put up a few crosses or rake the sand.
I’m going to try and do my best for a better tomorrow and I hope you do,
too.
Favel
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

In addition to short updates, I’ll be featuring “guest blogging” from my friend Favel Stoda, who has traveled from Los Angeles to New Mexico to work in these final days of the election in a “swing state.” She’ll be posting front-line commentary as she can while she’s busily assisting efforts in that state.
Ten days before the 2004 National Election, I find myself staying with some very nice people that I didn’t even know a week ago in Santa Fe, New Mexico.  I ask myself what brought me here?  The answer: George W Bush.
Two weeks after 9/11, I was having dinner with some close friends.  One of my friends was born in Baghdad but her family immigrated to the United States when she was a child.  She was telling us that within a year the US would be at war with Iraq.  She believed that President Bush would use the “terrorist excuse” to finish off what his father had started along with gaining control of the oil. I knew she was wrong.   After all, the terrorists were in Afghanistan and that was several countries away from Iraq and most strict Moslems despised Saddam.
Thirteen months later, there was a large peace rally in downtown Los Angeles.  I didn’t attend because I believe Bush was only posturing to get the UN inspectors back there and surely we weren’t going to war.  I celebrated the holidays hoping that we would find Osama.    My brother-in-law, is full time army and was on notice that his unit was going to be deployed for Iraq and he was to get them ready.  My hope for world peace was beginning to waiver and I was very worried about my sister and their kids but I was still hopeful.
In January 2003, I began to have some serious doubts about the posturing.  Our elected officials had already voted to give our President the authority to go to war with Iraq.  I attended a very large peace rally in Los Angeles and realized that I had been naïve for too long.  I bought myself a pair of Doc Martens and took a bus to San Francisco and joined over 400,000 protesters.  It felt great to be a part of such a big movement; surely the President would take notice.  My Doc’s gave me blisters and I attended two more rallies but it ended to be all for naught as all of us discovered on March 20th.
In April, my brother-in-law went to Baquabah, Iraq for a year.  I organized care packages for our troops at work and realized that I needed to learn more about how my government works and the Middle East.  I wanted to do more but  didn’t know what to do.
I started following politics and was quite pleased when Wesley Clark got into the race.  Finally, someone I believed in and felt like I could trust.  I
joined up with some other Hollywood supporters and worked on fundraisers for Clark.  I loved it but then Clark had to drop it.  I have no hard feelings, running a national campaign costs tons of money and he had entered a little too late.  I followed Clark’s lead and jumped on the Kerry bandwagon.  I gave money to almost every appeal that came my way (I had never given to anyone running for office before Clark!)
In April 2004, my brother-in-law returned safely from Iraq and I started
volunteering with the Veteran’s for Peace in Santa Monica.  A wonderful group of volunteers and on Sundays they put up “Arlington West” just north of the pier.  Arlington West is a temporary cemetery of three-foot high crosses and each cross represents a serviceperson who has died in Iraq since the war started.  We start at 7:00 am and have the 1,000+ crosses done around 10:00 am and then take them down at sunset.   I learned to wear gloves after the first time I volunteered and got blisters on my hands from raking the sand (more blisters for Bush-it kind of sounds like a country song).
Now, it’s October 24, 2004 and I’m in Santa Fe with over 500 volunteers from the Santa Fe area, California, New York, Texas, Arizona, DC, Virginia and numerous other locations.  I’ve met housewives, retirees, students, people like myself taking time off from their jobs to help in a swing state. On my first day as a volunteer with the New Mexico Victory 2004, I made 300 phone calls beside a retired 75 year old Methodist Minister (he’s amazing on the phone).  Later, I attended a rally in Espanola where a group of low riders (wearing “Vatos for Kerry” t-shirts and I really want one) escorted a bus carrying the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and a few other Hispanic leaders came to town.  I got to shake hands with Deloris Huerta and General Baca!
I spent today in Las Vegas (New Mexico, of course) phone banking and canvassing the town for potential volunteers and voters.  Although, I’ve had an altitude headache for two days I’ve never been more excited about this volunteer work.  It’s so important that Kerry wins this election but if there’s one thing I’ve learned in the last few years-what Margaret Mead said over 50 years ago is even more true today “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world-indeed it is the only thing that has.”
I’m feeling confident that Kerry is going to win on November 2nd but what’s equally  important is for all of us to decide what are we going to do on November 3rd.
Stay tuned for my next update on this novice’s grass roots campaign on probably the most important election of our lifetime…it really is.   (Yes, I sent in my absentee ballot before I hit the road.)
All my best,
Favel
PS (Californians don’t forget to vote yes on Prop 72!)
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com