If you live in the ABC Unified School District, vote for Maynard Law today. Below is a mailer I did for his campaign.
I have changed my résumé in a big way in order to better describe what I’ve been doing for the past 4 years.
See more on the Career Highlights page: http://randyterrell.net/new-career-highlights/2011-save-vernon-jobs-campaign-vernon-chamber/
Last week, we wrote about a great mailer effectively utilizing an opponent’s outburst at City Council – that unfortunately had the wrong Election Date on it.
Today, which marks a week until hundreds of municipal elections across the country, we see a mailer that shows the wrong polling place hours on it.
From NewsWorks.org:
In the Northeast Philadelphia City Council race, incumbent Brian O’Neill’s campaign has filed complaints with the city board of elections, the city board of ethics and the District Attorney’s office about mailings that have reached voters touting the candidacy of his Democratic opponent, Bill Rubin.
…
O’Neill’s folks are steamed because the mailer doesn’t say who paid for it – a violation of the state election code – AND because the mailer has the wrong hours for voting on November 8th. As you can see above, it says that polls open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m..
In fact, polls open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. The O’Neill campaign says the mailer is going to Republicans who would likely vote for their guy, making it look like a deliberate effort to mislead voters.
It also dovetails in nicely with a recent article we did about Independent Expenditures not helping your campaign…this mailer was an IE by AFSCME.
It could also be a dirty trick by the campaign, as the Republican opponent claims. They say the mailer went to Republican households?
We vote on the side of the wrong election day, since that’s enough to keep people away altogether.
What do you think?
Happy Halloween!
Halloween is often just a few days before the election, so many candidates either arrange Halloween fundraisers that resemble nothing like Halloween, or are too busy out walking door to door or attending events to really do anything with it.
These five candidates take Halloween and infuse it into their campaign videos, from everything weird, educational, to high production value.
1. Dr. Dwight McKenna for Coroner
This ad wasn’t made specifically made for Halloween, but it might as well have been. Definitely the creepiest political video on YouTube, and makes you wonder what other political ads would be like if Coroner were an elected office in more places.
2. John Binkowski for Congress
This one definitely falls into the weird category, and we’re still not sure what it means.
3. Mattie Fein for Congress
Great political ad spoof on Young Frankenstein from our friend @filmladd.
4. Josh Brecheen for Oklahoma State Senate
Not scary, but definitely Halloween themed, but only at 0:50 and only for a few seconds.
5. Aaron Johnson for Georgia State senate
Not everything about Halloween has to be about scary politicians trying to take your money. Here, Aaron Johnson’s campaign turns Halloween into a PSA for safe trick-or-treating.
image via djabejas
Shane Daley is the owner of OnlineCandidate.com, which provides political campaign websites for candidates running for local office. For one low price, they offer a quality website designed to effectively broadcast your campaign message 24/7.
Savvy local election candidates can use the web to their advantage and run virtual rings around an opponent who has less online experience. Here are three tactics that candidates sometimes to gain an online advantage over an opponent. Only one of these tricks is really ‘dirty’, though. Guess which one!
1. Stealing a domain name. This can be painful if your opponent registers your name as a domain name. You can try to get the name for yourself, but that can take time and become an unneccessary distraction. If an opponent registers a domain of your name, does nothing with it and does not send the traffic to another site, you might want to move on and register a different name.
2. Backlinking bad things about a political opponent. This really isn’t a ‘dirty trick’, and it’s a strategy that any campaign can implement. Basically, you take a bad or embarrassing article about an opponent and link to it from as many places as possible. (Facebook, Twitter, bookmark sites, etc.) This works better on smaller campaigns with less overall online exposure. Done properly, you may be able to ‘push’ up that item in the search results for people searching for that person. One tip – use the candidate’s name as the text of the link!
3. Micro sites. This is where a campaign sets up a small website that focuses on a single issue or a flaw of an opponent. These sites are typically negative by nature. By targeting a more specific audience, you can provide with a single point of reference. One advantage of this technique is that you can keep ‘negative’ material off of your main campaign site.
There are, of course, much nastier things being done online between political opponents. Of course we don’t advocate stealing domain names, but back-linking and building micro-sites are effective tactics – particularly if they are backed by facts and the truth.
All the way from Vancouver, Washington comes this controversial mailer sent by an independent group on behalf of two candidates running for city council. This mailer recalled an episode during a council meeting in which Councilwoman Jeanne Harris called out a citizen for pointing a finger at the council members.
Here’s the breakdown:
Issue: Politicians in Vancouver are allegedly disconnected from the people they swore to represent. Their opponents say, the current council members are consumed with gaining and keeping power. Now, the city is in a state of social and economic turmoil.
The Bad Guy: While the mailer depicts Councilwoman Jeanne Harris and Mayor Tim Leavitt (who are actually not up for re-election), the antagonist here is clearly supposed to be the out-of-touch city council–some of whom are up for re-election.
Achilles Heel: The clear silver bullet was the central tagline, “GAVEL THEM DOWN! GAVEL THEM DOWN!” This resurfaced bad memories from Councilwoman Harris’ outburst. By connecting this to the list of problems facing Vancouver, the mailer is able to discredit the city councils’ integrity and effectiveness.
Summary: One side of the mailer does it job well by resurfacing a well known event that is a clear example of a politician’s disconnect. In this case it was Councilwoman Harris’ memorable, “GAVEL HIM DOWN!” The mailer also connects the city council with all the problems facing the city of Vancouver. The other side of the mailer depicts two candidates for city council, Bill Turlay and Josephine Wentzel, with their credentials. They are separated by a tree in the center, symbolic of spring and new life. The tagline reads, “Vancouver needs a fresh start. Vote for change on November 6th” The new candidates for council now represent that fresh start.
Bottom Line: Arrogant politicians that do a bad job create a perfect storm.
With that being said, it should be mentioned that the piece did have two errors; the election is on November 8th, and Vancouver does not have the lowest unemployment in the state.
Here is the video of the notorious outburst, and below that, a closer look at the mailer.
It’s best to write original political copy that is your own (or your campaign’s own) words, and not something recycled from a website.
Too often though, candidates, managers, and other political operatives feel the pinch of creating new political content and look to other sources for “talking points” and “inspiration” for what they write. Under the often overwhelming demand for articles, op-eds, newsletter columns, new website copy and emails–it’s often too tempting to go to the web for inspiration, and can sometimes border (or include outright) plagiarism.
And sometimes that plagiarism can end up being tracked to an unsavory source, even if the material was relatively innocuous (as politics goes).
In the upcoming Arizona State Senate Recall race against Russell Pearce (SB 1070 fame), Pearce’s campaign has come under fire, not so much for what has been borrowed or that it has been borrowed at all, but from where it was borrowed from.
According to an article by Jeff Biggers in Salon.com:
…a new examination of Pearce’s website and public statements reveals that the self-proclaimed architect of Arizona’s “papers please” immigration law has regularly borrowed significant portions of text from the writings of hard-line white nationalists, fringe anti-immigrant activists, and others whose views far fall outside the mainstream and presented them as his own.”
Biggers goes on to show that Pearce’s website often take wholesale from other websites and emails, including “Fred Elbel, an anti-immigrant extremist who has been linked to various white supremacist organizations.”
Biggers goes on to present enough evidence to show that Pearce’s campaign had seemingly plagiarized from other, non-racist sources, which is a big deal in itself.
Talking points on major issues get traded around a lot, but the key is to make sure that any talking points are put into your or your candidate’s own words, and not the words of people on record saying a myriad of racial slurs. The examples in the article crossed the line, especially ones taken from other published articles and authors.
And especially when you copy something from an alleged racist.
What do you think?
One of the first things we learn in our high school government class is how partisan affiliation most often passes from generation to generation. To put it another way, the easiest way to tell if you are a Republican or a Democrat when your grown is by seeing what your parents are registered as.
But how much can people’s social pressures and the political environments they reside in change that?
It’s a crucial question for candidates at all levels to know when they are deciding who their swing voters are and how many of the opposing party they could possibly peel away – either through voter registration efforts or direct voter contact.
In the November edition of American Politics Research, Jeffrey Lyons of the University of Colorado at Boulder finds that social pressures do play a role in changing partisan affiliation, but mainly in the context of different political environments. According to Lyons, his findings “suggest that partisan socialization is a process that extends beyond an individual’s childhood.”
In a pinch, some of his finds are that:
- A Republican in a Democrat town is much more likely to change, and vice versa, than a person who’s party affiliation matches the dominant party where they live.
- Your “discussion networks” (aka the people you talk to) play a major role in how easily you are to sway to the other side, and if you still have a lot of relatives in your discussion network, you’ll probably stay with your current party.
What about people that may move to a certain area because they are already starting to be affiliated that way (say a conservative Democrat moving to Orange County, CA because of the good conservative climate)?
The author states that while some people may “self-select” themselves into this group and that people often relocate for economic reasons, and that
evidence of selection into communities and locales based on the aggregate partisanship of its residents is
less apparent.”
What does this info say for local campaigners? It says that if you’re a Republican, you should probably back off of trying to register voters in that trendy little liberal enclave, and if your a Democrat, stay away from trying to register Democrats in that new posh gated suburb.
You can check out the entire article in the November issue of American Politics Research.
Ever since YouTube became a household name, the ability for amateurs to create their own campaign videos has increased, and with some very powerful results. One only has to look at the unauthorized “1984″ Obama ad that took Apple’s original ad against IBM and the PC and turned it against Hillary Clinton.
Unauthorized campaign ads can allow a message to get out there that your campaign couldn’t send, but sometimes they can backfire.
Below are five of our favorite unauthorized ads for local (& one U.S. Senate) campaigns. Their all good in their own ways:
1. (Anti-) Janice Hahn for Congress (CA-36)
The inspiration for our list is a video that still apparently splits Republicans in the community where it was intended. From campaign video auteur Ladd Ehlinger, this video was repudiated by the campaign it was meant to help, but later leveraged to get additional press out of an old accusation. @FilmLadd‘s videos could have probably made all 5 spots on this list, but we chose the best one.
2. Paul Hodes for Senate (New Hampshire)
Campaign ads of smoke filled rooms, insinuating your opponent is in bed with sleazy interests, are a dime a dozen. But rarely do you get one that goes on past 30 seconds, and this video shows that when you have to include actual dialogue in your shady meeting video, you realize the actors have no idea what goes on in shady meetings. Thanks to political strategist in training @dccendejas for the tip on this video!
3. Phu Nguyen for California State Assembly
What is a supporter to do when your candidate’s last name rhymes with “win”? Make a funky-fresh beat, stick it in a campaign video, and upload it on YouTube, of course.
4. Virgil Goode for Congress
Who knew that Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode’s campaign supporters and detractors were so fervently creative? The video below beat out at least a half dozen other unauthorized campaign videos that were both for and against Goode. If you want to check out those, including several made for a 12th grade civics project, click here.
This video takes one of Congressman Goode’s actual campaign ads, and exaggerates it for hilarious results.
5. Ben Loyola for Virginia State Senate
Not every unauthorized campaign ad is outrageous, silly, or tremendously amateur–some are actually quite good. We commend the Virgina Tea Party Alliance for a well done and effective unauthorized ad.
LinkedIn Profile
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email
FourSquare