Search Results for ‘political campaigns’
For those who have followed the polls over the course of this election, it may be a relief to know the final numbers on January 3rd. Many dozens of polls have been taken, often showing results ten percentage points or more away from the poll taken next. Pollsters call voters in Iowa and NH three or four times a day. Campaigns add to the telephone traffic. The Obama campaign has made 1.6 million phone calls in New Hampshire, which has a total population of 1.3 million people.
But as the election has gotten closer and the media coverage become more intense, the polls have swung even more wildly. Governor Mike Huckabee was a media darling with low poll numbers until his numbers inched up in a couple of polls; then talk of a Huckabee surge brought the spotlight to him, and he was suddenly up by 22 points in Iowa. But the increased attention brought increased scrutiny. In fact, it was just enough scrutiny to bring Huckabee’s numbers to the level of former Governor Mitt Romney’s, effectively creating a “horserace.”
The same thing happened with McCain in New Hampshire, and to a lesser extent, Obama and now Edwards in Iowa. Remember the pre-Thompson buzz, too?
It all smacks of the rise and fall of Howard Dean. The Media brought him increased attention, and his poll numbers went up. But then they kept going up, and the media went into full-scrutiny mode (remember “Doubts About Dean” for weeks on end?). It was a big story when his numbers finally topped off, and the moment the media was waiting for came on the night of the Iowa Caucuses. The media flexed its muscles, and the ‘default-nominee’ faltered.
Did the media buzz create high poll numbers, or vise versa? Whether the powers-that-be artificially engineered these contests or not, these multi-way horseraces are nothing but good for the political press.
January 1st, 2008
Bill Richardson started his campaign as a moderate Democrat who was running based on a rather impressive resume as Governor, Cabinet Member, Diplomat and Congressman. He talked about his experience balancing budgets and opposing gun control. However, Richardson’s campaign has recently changed its tack dramatically. While Richardson still emphasizes his background as a pro-gun moderate in rural areas, he’s now become the peacenik candidate in the rest of Iowa.
Richardson has come out as the only major Presidential candidate to support withdrawing all American troops from Iraq in six months and filmed an ad with bloggers endorsing his policy. He has phased out wearing an American flag lapel pin in favor of the Sensible Priorities pin.
The most extreme sign of Richardson’s tack to the left was his recent hiring of Dave Rogers as his political director. Rogers worked on Dennis Kucinich’s Presidential campaign and was reported by reliable sources to be staffing Kucinich at events as recently as this spring. Rogers has also worked for Western Iowa’s answer to Dennis Kucinich, Joyce Schulte, as well as for the Sensible Priorities campaign.
In contrast, the political directors for 1st tier Presidential campaigns are longtime Iowa political operatives (Chris Hayler for Clinton, Emily Parcell for Obama) or national operatives (Tim Maloney for Edwards). However, they focus on getting the support of legislators, major activists and organized labor. It seems that Rogers will be focusing on the anti-war left (as it is doubtful that someone who operated a salon and day spa is the right person to reach out to the UAW).
Rogers’ hiring further reinforces that Bill Richardson is making a very determined effort to reach out not just anti-war Democrats but, specifically, to the core of peace activists who supported Kucinich in 2004. Although peaceniks are a relatively small bloc, they are very likely caucusgoers. If Richardson is still around 10% then, peace activists could play a decisive role in propping Richardson in up in many precincts and making him viable.
But this is a dangerous balancing game for a candidate who started running as a moderate. Richardson has already lost one key supporter due to his swing to the left and Hotline, among others, finds his policy shift not plausible. Richardson is playing a very delicate balancing game trying to woo both the most conservative caucusgoers and the most liberal over the next ten weeks. If it works, Richardson might become a first tier candidate. But if it doesn’t, Richardson will not only lose but could so in a way that undermines his credibility as a politician in the future.
October 16th, 2007
Iowa State Representative McKinley Bailey announced his endorsement of Joe Biden today. Bailey is a first term State Representative and was widely courted by Presidential campaigns because of his service in Iraq in the 82nd Airborne Division. Biden has picked up endorsements from a number of Iowa legislators as part of his campaign’s increased focus on the caucuses. Bailey is also a member of a prominent political family in Hamilton County. However, his father, Hamilton County Supervisor Doug Bailey has not just endorsed Obama, but is a member of Obama’s statewide leadership team.
It’s also interesting to note that Hillary Clinton announced her retirement savings plan in the Bailey family’s hometown of Webster City. It seems the Clinton campaign may be using the split between father and son to scoop up support in North Central Iowa.
However, regardless of what the Clinton campaign does, it appears that Thanksgiving and Christmas may be interesting in the Bailey family. While many Iowa families may go to the caucus together, it does necessarily mean that they support the same candidate when they get to their caucus location.
October 11th, 2007
Today was a big day in the Iowa House, where Representatives voted 59-37 to pass Senate File 427, which updates Iowa’s civil rights law to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and perceived sexual orientation).
Until yesterday, few people expected the bill to make it to the floor of the House at all, even though it passed the Iowa Senate last month. Without a guarantee that the bill would pass (or even a guarantee that all of the Democrats would sign on), the leadership was reluctant to force its members to make a vote that could hurt them in their reelection campaigns. Ex-Speaker and current Minority Leader Chris Rants was doing everything he possibly could to prevent any Republican members from supporting the bill (even though some Republicans were definitely interested), and it looked like he might succeed in forcing a stalemate through the end of the legislative session.
In the end, though, the Democratic leadership put civil rights ahead of political concerns, and put the bill up to a vote. The result was a resounding victory. And, although Murphy and McCarthy have been getting a lot of grief about VOICE and a few other issues that have worked up our blogging community, this should earn them back some street cred.
More from Mark’s diary over at BleedingHeartland (partially cross-posted with permission):
Senate File 427 updates Iowa’s Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination in employment, public accommodation, housing, education, or credit practices based on age, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.
The discussion on various blogs throughout the state over the past few months has focused on what the Iowa Legislature has FAILED to accomplish - rather than the victories. This bill is truly a victory for progressives and for everyone who would like to call Iowa home. Leadership in both chambers made this bill a priority throughout the session - and now we can separate ourselves from the 33 other states where it’s OK to dismiss employees because of their real or perceived sexual orientation.
In particular, it was leadership from Democrats in cooperation with Iowa businesses and civil rights leaders who pushed this bill through to final passage. Corporate America is rapidly realizing that creating a tolerant atmosphere for everyone to work is an important part of growing a business - and a state. According to an article in Fortune Magazine:
So it’s clear where big business is going. What’s interesting is to watch it pull the rest of the country along. It turns out that the most important factor shaping people’s feelings about gay issues is not their age or even their religion - although those do matter - but whether they have relatives, friends or co-workers who are gay.
“The more out and open people are, the more changed the straight people are all around them,” says Joe Solmonese, the Human Rights Campaign president. HRC began organizing workplaces to secure benefits for gay employees. This has inadvertently become a shrewd political strategy as well. “To move the mindset of the American people, we need to find the places where they congregate,” Solmonese says. “Priority one is corporate America.”
April 26th, 2007
There is an issue in the news right now that is of greatest interest to Iowans. I’m not taking about frontloading the primary schedule, but rather the exponentially increasing role of the internet in campaigns. While it remains to be seen what impact it will have had when this process culminates on January 14, 2008, we have already seen the effect it can have for a candidate. Many have credited YouTube for handing Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and the Democrats the senate majority, thanks to a video featuring now former Senator George Allen calling a Webb staffer a “macaca.” Facebook and MySpace have also thrown their names into the political arena. While this may get many more people involved in the caucuses, it is increasingly difficult for the rest of us to process such a large volume of information and take the time to make sense of it for ourselves.
A prime example of this is a video entitled “Vote Different.” Posted on YouTube two weeks ago, it has been viewed over 919,000 times. It is a testament to the power of such ad campaigns on the internet. If you haven’t seen it, watch it for yourself.
Upon first glance, you should notice a few things. First is that it is a clever mashup of the famous 1984 Super Bowl ad introducing Apple Macintosh to the computer world. Secondly, it appears to be obvious that it is from the Obama campaign. This is a view that many major sources of news media have advanced. It’s a fair statement. The woman with the hammer has the symbol of Obama’s campaign on her shirt, and at the end of the ad is Obama’s web address.
But something just doesn’t seem right. Why would that particular sound bite be chose? There must be something that gets their message across more efficiently. They show Hillary’s explicit attempt to come across as a regular person, having a “conversation” with each of us individually. Now watch the original. The Macintosh ad speaks of “one people, one will, one resolve, one cause,” and “a garden of pure ideology where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory thoughts,” all coming from a voice that is meant to sound evil. It completely contradicts with Hillary’s explicit statement that “we all need to be part of the discussion,” and “I don’t want people who agree with me.” Themes such as unity, and “one people” are actually coming from the Obama campaign. Also notice the change in contrast between the two, as Hillary is bright white, as opposed to the dark room. The image of the “big brother” is dark, and blends with the dark wall, with a lighter room.
Now consider that the video was posted by someone with the username “ParkRidge47.” It is significant in that Senator Clinton was born in Park Ridge in 1947. It was also posted with the text: “Make up your own mind. Decide for yourself who should be our next president,” very much in line with the Hillary sound bite. So let’s say this actually is from the Clinton campaign. Could the message be that she is trying to create an exchange of ideas to make everyone better off, thus distancing herself from the image of politics that she is associated (i.e. a war of the partisans or even a politics as a competitive sport in which the American people are spectators)?
In the original commercial, the power comes from the irony of the hammer hitting the screen just as the “big brother” says “we will prevail.” In the mashup, the hammer hits Hillary as she says “I want to keep this conversation going until November, 2008.” Also notice that the woman with the Obama symbol is now wearing an ipod, symbolizing that she refuses to take part in Hillary’s conversation, and is then actually stops it suggesting that Obama is the one who wants to end her conversation. As for the reason why 2008 won’t be like “1984,” that is the year that Walter Mondale, running as an unabashed liberal, lost forty-nine of the fifty states in the general election. This suggests that having Hillary on the Democratic ticket would result in a different outcome this time around. This message is made clearer by having Obama associated with the black screen, while Hillary is associated with white.
Both sides have denied responsibility for the mashup, and I personally don’t subscribe to either view. We just don’t know, and can’t say for sure where this ad came from. My point is that not everything will be as it appears this campaign season. We must all take a closer look at everything we see and form our own opinions. It’s not an easy job, but it is our responsibility to do so.
March 21st, 2007
After the Edwards campaign released its list of “senior Iowa staff” the other day, I thought it might be prudent to discuss how each campaign’s staff is shaping up. Their differing approaches are interesting, at least, and they could make a difference by the time the caucuses come around next January.
First up, the Obama campaign has been doing quite a bit of hiring over the last month. All of their key positions (regional field director, state field director, state director, and deputy state director) are filled, and they are hiring on new field organizers every week. Some have compared Obama’s staff to Howard Dean’s from four years ago, because it seems to include an unusual number of ideologically motivated young people, many of whom have never worked a caucus before. Their typical field organizer offer, which is the lowest of the candidates reviewed here, is $2,000 per month. Because Senator Obama is so magnetic, they are having no trouble filling positions, but the low salary may not be enough to entice experienced operatives.
Next, the Edwards campaign has staffed all or most of its key positions as well, and has begun hiring field organizers. In contrast to Obama’s staff, most of Edwards’s staff so far have Iowa political experience, and many have also worked with state director Jennifer O’Malley or state field director Jackie Lee before. General impressions from folks seem to be that the Edwards staff has things together, that their hiring process is quicker and perhaps more organized than Obama’s, and that they already have a more specific plan in place. Their typical field organizer offer seems to be $2,500 per month.
And finally, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been a bit slower to announce their hiring decisions here, but those whom they have hired have impressive resumes. Staffers who may not have significant Iowa experience but who have significant experience elsewhere are taking positions on the Clinton campaign that are well below where the staffers might be in most campaign hierarchies. Clinton is paying field organizers about $2,750 per month — the most of any candidate — although from what we know here, many positions have not been filled.
Beyond these “big three” campaigns, none of the others have hired (or begun to hire) a full staff here. Dodd, Richardson, and Biden all have a few folks on the ground here, but not enough to get a general impression yet.
How the staffing differences will affect the caucuses, nobody knows, but past caucuses have proven that staff strength can be a major factor in the final delegate counts. Without a sound field strategy in place, a campaign cannot win Iowa, and that takes a good staff.
March 20th, 2007
I have to admit something right up top: I am a reluctant subscriber to the Atlantic (Monthly). It came free as some credit card rewards program, so I get it. I’m not always proud of it, but whatever.
So when a fellow IowaProgress team member told me that I should check out the March issue for a mention of the local State House race here last year (between Democrat Eric Palmer and ousted Republican Danny Carroll), I was pleased to find it already sitting on my coffee table. Then I started reading it (online version here), and even before I finished the second sentence, I knew I wasn’t going to be happy. Here’s how writer Joshua Green begins:
A tough loss can be hard to swallow, and plenty of defeated politicians have been known to grumble about sinister conspiracies. When they are rising stars like Danny Carroll, the Republican speaker pro tempore of Iowa’s House of Representatives, and the loss is unexpected, the urge to blame unseen forces can be even stronger—and in Carroll’s case, it would have the additional distinction of being justified.
Yes, Danny Carroll was a rising star, victimized by “unseen forces” at work in House District 75. Perhaps had Carroll simply leaned on this leading consulting firm a little more, he would’ve won. But these “unseen forces” at work weren’t ghosts, ghouls, or the powerful anti-pumpkin lobby, it was something of a gay political stealth force (led by this man), out to get good little homophobes like Danny.
Yes, it is true that Eric Palmer got money from out-of-state donors, and perhaps some of them are gay. Some of them are also probably straight. Many out-of-state donors give money to one person hoping that their opponent will lose, and many of them do so on the basis of the different candidates’ political positions. Danny Carroll got money from such donors (although much of it was channeled through Christopher Rants’s PAC), as did Eric Palmer. This is not news.
It seems that even Danny himself didn’t think there was anything to this story at first. In fact, Danny probably had the right idea before the reporter tried to change his interview subject’s mind mid-interview. This paragraph is the kicker:
Carroll was just sitting down to dinner but agreed to talk about his loss, which he attributed to the activism of Grinnell College students. A suggestion that he’d been targeted by a nationwide network of wealthy gay activists was met with polite midwestern skepticism.
Yup, that’s right: Danny’s pretty sure it was us. We’re pretty sure it was us. And the number of college students who voted for Eric Palmer is remarkably close to the number of votes Danny lost by. But Joshua Green still blames the gays. Green convinces Danny to look at the IECDB reports from the 2006 race, and here’s where things go from there:
Scrolling through the thirty-two-page roster of campaign contributors revealed plenty of $25 and $50 donations from nearby towns like Oskaloosa and New Sharon. But a $1,000 donation from California stood out on page 2, and, several pages later, so did another $1,000 from New York City. “I’ll be darned,” said Carroll. “That doesn’t make any sense.” As we kept scrolling, Carroll began reading aloud with mounting disbelief as the evidence passed before his eyes. “Denver … Dallas … Los Angeles … Malibu … there’s New York again … San Francisco! I can’t—I just cannot believe this,” he said, finally. “Who is this guy again?”
Eric Palmer got $1,000 from New York?!?!?! And more donations from Dallas and Denver?!?!?! Shucks! I guess that means Eric won because of the gay agenda then.
Seriously, though, how is this puff piece journalism? People with certain interests donate to political campaigns across the country all the time, on both sides. Not everyone knows why every donor donates, and in many cases the candidates don’t even know what a donor’s agenda might be. It isn’t like Eric had a huge resource advantage over Danny, either. It may be sensational because a few of Palmer’s donors were gay, but it is certainly nothing new.
If this was our 15 minutes of national media fame, I’m going to be very disappointed.
February 13th, 2007
Although Tom Vilsack may have been the Mayor of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa (population 8,751), he doesn’t have the support of the entire town. Not because he did something wrong as Mayor, as State Senator or even as Governor but because Barack Obama’s political director is also from Mt. Pleasant. When Obama hired former Senate Caucus Director Emily Parcell as political director, he hired another Mount Pleasantonian. This means that one small Iowa town will be very much in the thick of things during the caucus. Although Henry County may only be the 40th most important county in terms of delegates, it certainly seems to be more important when it comes to who makes the decisions on Presidential campaigns.
January 27th, 2007
A reader has been pestering us to post about Leonard Boswell’s MySpace for a little while now. I saw that Ed Fallon also had one, so I thought it’d be a good time to post some thoughts about how campaigns use the internet.
I’ve thought for a while that most political campaigns — especially in Iowa — use at most about 10% of the Internet’s potential for connecting with voters and organizing supporters. This campaign season is better than past ones here, but still, I’ve signed up for most of the Iowa campaigns’ email lists, and I get fewer than one a week from all of them except for Nussle’s. (Some, I’ve never gotten any from, even though I’ve signed up on their web sites. So maybe there have been errors with signup, too?)
The IDP sends out emails pretty frequently, but this week I’ve gotten about six emails with exactly the same thing each time (about a Medicare Press Conference), and that’s just annoying.
MySpace is nice, but it isn’t going to connect a campaign with rural voters all that well. And emails are good, but they usually only work for people who have already pledged support, because no one else signs up on an email list.
What could be improved? For one, the web sites themselves could all stand to be a lot more usable. That means things like taking more advantage of whitespace, making site organization more logical, making content more readable, and making the design easier to look at for long periods of time.
But it also means more interactivity. Real blogs would be nice (I haven’t seen a single thing I’d call a “blog” on any Iowa sites, even though Fallon claims to have one). Also, the photo galleries should be updated more regularly, so that candidates can say “check my web site to see if your picture got taken today!” at all of their appearances. That’ll get people to the web sites and keep them thinking about candidates.
In general, it seems like the people at the top of campaigns often see web sites as much as a liability as a tool, and that’s not helpful. I’ve been offering my help around to some campaigns, though, so hopefully I’ll be able to help out a little bit with this stuff.
For the money, there’s no better marketing tool than the Internet. Someday, everyone will realize it.
May 15th, 2006
When we (and other Iowa Blogs) posted a call to support Boswell in Barbara Boxer’s “Whom should we give money to?” poll, you responded. We were pretty sure Boswell would lose, since he was at second-to-last place, but then he jumped, and this weekend, he was declared the winner with 31% of the votes. I won’t claim that bloggers did it all, but we certainly made a difference, and that’s something we can all be proud of.
In general, Iowa political blogs — in particular, progressive Iowa blogs — seem to have improved significantly since I started watching them closely in January. I think all of us have seen our traffic increase, and that has kept us interested in it. In particular, I’ve seen Iowa Progress’s traffic go from 0 (we were only founded in March) to over 1,000 visits per week. Most surprising, perhaps, is the fact that we get a ton of our hits from outside Iowa. That means that people who are looking for places to send money are listening to us, and we’re filling a niche for them that may not have been filled before us.
It also means that potential presidential campaigns are listening to what we have to say. And that much is clear from the interviews that Drew (Feingold, Warner) and the folks at Political Forecast (Warner) have done with potential candidates. I’ve complained about the quality of the interviews in the past, but I still think that they’re interesting and that they set an important precedent for 2008 that candidates can’t afford to ignore us.
We’re growing, and people in the business are recognizing it. State-wide campaign staffers have said things like “I honestly think any candidate that ignores what is being said in the blogosphere and power of the web is a losing candidate.” The stakes are constantly rising.
But unfortunately, today Drew announced that he won’t be blogging at DrewMiller.net for the next several months. This is a blow to our blogosphere in Iowa, but it won’t be fatal. We have a void to fill, and I know all of us bloggers are going to try our best to fill it.
May 14th, 2006
Previous Posts
