Yard Signs, Again, Ad Nauseum

Here we go again. More information we already knew about yard signs. But go ahead, waste your campaign dollars. But try keeping it to under 2 percent of the budget please:

(From the Washington Post - The Fix) 

Sorry campaign managers: Lawn signs are only 98.3 percent useless.

By Philip Bump December 29, 2015 Email the author

Volunteer Corey Essler holds a sign for Rick Santorum, Monday, in Menasha, Wis. in 2012. (AP)

 

No one loves lawn signs more than political candidates. Political candidates love lawn signs because 1. They love seeing their name around, 2. They assume that the number of lawn signs they see somehow correlates to the level of support they enjoy and 3. They know that campaigns have lawn signs, and candidates are biased toward mimicking what winning candidates have done. Between 1984 and 2012, according to one study, use of lawn signs in campaigns quadrupled.

The problem with lawn signs, as any campaign manager would probably tell you, is that they are expensive, annoying, logistically tricky to distribute and — most importantly — don’t seem to do much of anything. Candidates like to feel as if they’re winning. Campaign managers like to know that they’re winning or at least making progress. So campaign managers like things that have either measurable effects on voters (like identifying targeted supporters) or demonstrated past effects (like advertising). Lawn signs don’t fit into either category. To a campaign manager, lawn signs are similar to randomly handing out fliers at a grocery store: a waste of time, money and energy.

Now there’s data out that, in the main, proves campaign managers right. Last October, we spoke with Donald Green, a professor at Columbia University who has done decades of work assessing the utility of various methods of voter outreach. He's also the lead author of a study released this month that evaluates the efficacy of lawn signs. Green partnered with researchers at universities in Upstate New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia to test signs in four races at the federal, state and local level.

Cutting to the chase: “[I]t appears that signs typically have a modest effect on advertising candidates’ vote shares — an effect that is probably greater than zero but unlikely to be large enough to alter the outcome of a contest that would otherwise be decided by more than a few percentage points.” The effect of such signs, the study suggests, is about the same as direct mail.

Of the researchers’ four experiments, only one involved what you might generally think of as yard signs. In three of the experiments, signs were placed in public places within randomly assigned precincts. In the fourth, signs were placed in supporters’ yards — the thing that campaigns often spend a lot of time coordinating. In that case, interestingly, the effects were essentially zero. Aggregated, the four experiments suggested that there was a 1.7 percentage-point boost to the candidate from the signs -- with a standard error of 0.7 percentage points. (In precincts adjacent to the targeted ones, there was a slightly smaller benefit.)

(Green, et. al.)

(The study included a sign, at right, paid for by FreedomWorks and used in the most recent Virginia gubernatorial election, which unfortunately misspelled the name of the state.)

In how many races would that sort of lawn-sign bump make a difference? Of 6,000-plus general and primary elections in House and Senate races between 2006 and 2012, only 2.2 percent of races were within 1.7 percentage points, according to our analysis of initial results. In other words, this could matter in 1-in-50 races.

The study also offers a result that candidates will love and campaign managers will hate. The effect is very small, but it would be hard for a campaign manager who's arguing for robust get-out-the-vote efforts to say no to a candidate who demands lawn signs in order to boost his margins. The silver lining is that the study suggests that the much-easier distribution of lawn signs in random public places is more effective than finding supporters and plunking signs in their yards.

But when have candidates ever sat down and considered the political science before making judgment calls in close races? Superstition dictates lawn signs, and candidates are the ones raising the money and putting their name on the ballot. The study would essentially have had to demonstrate that candidates who used them lost before a candidate would have second thoughts about the efficacy of lawn signs. And even then, he'd probably still buy them.

Down Ticket Races - Why Challengers Sometimes Must Spend More

I often get asked by my candidates why it seems to be costing them more than the competition to run. In fact, they sometimes get downright testy about it. "Why am I spending twice as much as Joe? In fact, Joe isn't doing anything at all, except a few signs. Why should I bother? Our feedback from people at the door is great. We look stupid spending big money in this small water board/school board/Town Council race."

Then I must explain to the candidate the realities of being a challenger. "Sally," I say, "Joe is the incumbent. Joe has automatic name recognition from his 15 years in office, not to mention that all important I in front of him name on the ballot. In other words, Joe doesn't need to do anything. The election is his to lose."

And lost it  may well be if Sally is willing to work harder, walk and phone more and yes, spend more money. No one knows your name. She has never held public office. Yes, she has gone to every meeting of the board since 2005, but so what? Her and three other people. And where are they, by the way I ask? How much have they donated to your campaign? Are they out walking with you? Are they making phone calls? (Probably not, because the candidate never asked. How you can run for office and still be the shyest person in the room has always been a mystery to me.)

"But I have my signs in all the best locations," protests Sally. "People like my walk piece. My first mail went out the same time as the sample ballot. Of course people know my name by now. All my friends say so. People are beginning to talk about how much more money I am spending than Joe. What about campaign finance reform?"

Absolutely, we believe in campaign finance reform. Campaigning should not be a sport for the rich. The playing field must be leveled. But we have to deal with reality. Reality says you have to take your message to the voters several times in several different ways.

"So, yes," I say patiently, "your first mailer was great. But it will be forgotten when people go to the polls without some reinforcement. Your signs are fine, but they don't tell anyone anything about you, and they are just one in a sea of signs along the roadway. Walking is wonderful, and if you could get to every door in the district and talk to every frequent voter, you'd be in like Flynn (whoever he is), but you have 2000 doorhangers, and there are 9000 frequent voter doors.

"And yes, you are doing well in debates; you have good endorsements. But if no one hears the debates, or sees the endorsements because let's face it, they don't read the newspapers like they used to. Facebook is a tiny percentage of your voting base and. your friends, God love 'em, are just that, your friends, not the average voter who will make up his mind on or close to election day. That person needs a reminder. That person needs that second mailer from you, in their hand."

"Oh," answers Sally. Then she either agrees to make a few more phone calls and raise that last bit of money for one small mailer to poll voters, (and these days, the poll voter universe is small, with most people opting to mail their ballot in), or she shrugs and says, "Nah, it's ok. I feel really good about it."  And who knows, she may be right. But in my experience, dear candidate, it is just not worth the risk.

So, yes, our candidates in down ticket races do frequently spend more, sometimes a lot more, than the competition. But only when they have to. Only when the competition is an incumbent, or someone with great name recognition, or there is a major controversy about which they disagree. In those cases, not spending that extra cash may well lose you the seat that you are so well suited for, because the ones who need to know, the voters, never got the message.

FILING FOR NOVEMBER ELECTIONS OPEN NOW

Are you planning a run in November, School Board, City or Town Council, special district? Now's the time to file. August 7 is the last day, unless the incumbent does not run. Be sure you get enough correct signatures on your nomination papers, at least 30% more than the required number. You never know who has moved or doesn't know what District they are in.

And start drafting the all-important candidate's statement, those 200 words that give the voter an idea in a nutshell who you are, why you are qualified and what you'll do in office. Be precise, concise and clear. Have someone proofread it for you. List key endorsements and don't forget your website.

What ballot designation will you use? If you are running for school board, think about how your profession relates. Are you a teacher, a school psychologist, or a parent? All relevant. If not, it's not a fatal flaw, but those with titles that sound like they have experience in the job they are seeking have a leg-up on the competition for those who only read those three words on the ballot. And there are plenty of lazy voters.

Of course if you are the incumbent, your campaign, although never a shoo-in, has an advantage no one else can claim.

And as you know I am always going to say, start raising money for handouts, mail signs, and whatever else will help get your message out to voters at least 7 times in at least 3 different media. Sound daunting? it's how the winners win.

Tasty Tips for your Fundraising Recipe

  Making Fundraising Personal   From Campaigns and Elections Magazine

• By Renée Hatchwell

What every candidate needs to know when baking your Election Cake (Recipe for real election cake at the end of this article):

When I ask a potential fundraising client about their campaign, they often tell me why they’re running, what they have done in public service and who’s supporting them. Others respond by saying, “I will have my campaign manager send you literature,” or they’ll tell stories not related to asking for money.

Rarely do they volunteer the information that a contributor wants to know: Can you win and how will you win? Candidates often mask their discomfort with asking for money. They enjoy talking to constituents, going to meetings and being part of events, but put off whenever possible doing fundraising. Fundraising doesn’t have to be a negative experience — and it won’t be, if you make it personal.

Sure, asking for money doesn’t come easy to most people. To ask, you need to be ready to answer the question: Why should I give you money? And responding to the question requires a candidate to talk about his or her qualities. Most people have a difficult time talking about their qualities.  

But if a candidate gets comfortable talking about himself or herself, fundraising will be a much easier and more pleasant task. Moreover, once that comfort level is achieved, here are some ways candidates can help grow their fundraising hauls.  

Divide up the contact list

The candidate and campaign team must work jointly to maximize the size of the contact list. The candidate should be able to gather information for her friends and colleagues, community activists and political players in addition to labor and business leaders. Other groups such as environmental, health, energy, and tech are likely to be in the candidate’s orbit.

All of these groups are an integral part of a campaign’s outreach. Still, it’s the fundraising team that should determine which of the contacts will be asked for a contribution. Not all people in the groups listed above are contributors, and not all contributors are voices for your campaign plan.

By recognizing the difference, the candidate’s time will be better spent for fundraising. The lists presented to the candidate for calls and meetings will be strong with potential and proven givers to campaigns. Leave the other people for your campaign activities.

Do the prep work before call time

Call time provides the opportunity to communicate and connect with potential contributors and current supporters in a personal way. Yet placing calls is frustrating and difficult. Most of the time you get a voicemail, which defeats the purpose of the personal touch. A good approach is to have the campaign’s fundraiser or staff member do advance calls to get the best time and phone number for the candidate to call. This method alleviates the frustration of leaving a message.

Work on your call style

On the phone, a candidate should be positive, friendly and concise. Moreover, they should be straightforward as to why they’re calling. One way to start is by saying that this is a call to gain support and a contribution. Contributors appreciate the honesty and it lets them know the purpose of the conversation.

Make sure to close with a strong statement like, “I hope that this conversation has provided you with the necessary information to have confidence in me and to support my campaign. Your help would be greatly appreciated.”

 Write a follow-up letter

Handwritten notes might be somewhat archaic in the era of social media and computers, but they provide an added personal touch and help a candidate stand out. Moreover, they’re an effective way to follow up from your phone call.

If you have a form letter, add a handwritten note at the bottom that shows respect to the potential contributor. These personal touches help build relationships that’ll provide a solid base for all of your fundraising.

 Pick your events carefully

For the candidate, it’s easier to ask for a contribution for an event. In fact, that’s why candidates like to have events. But they’re time intensive and, if not well planned with a host or underwriter, can be costly. There are two types: Small contributor events, which are generally for friends and friends of friends who’ll contribute up to $100. As contributors they’re an important group because small-donor money is viewed by pundits as an indication of broader support within the community.

The other type of event is the large-dollar, major-contributor fundraiser. These events are usually small in number, yet produce large amounts of money. They’re harder to organize as they require a solid commitment from the host or host committee. For this type of event to be successful reach out to someone who’s prominent in political circles who can offer names for the guest list.

These events are usually at a private home or may be held at a hotel or restaurant. Cost for this type of event must be underwritten or else the campaign will spend unnecessary money.  

Renée Hatchwell is the founder of the Renée Hatchwell Company, whose fundraising clients range from local, state and federal candidates to organizations and associations.

American Classics: Election Cake (a tasty tale from Seriouseats.com)

  Alexandra Penfold

[Photograph: Pam Parrella]

No one told me there would be cake when I signed up to vote, but historically Election Cake was an important part of doing your civic duty in Connecticut as early as colonial days. If you're going to rock the vote, I see no reason to do so sans cake. In anticipation of Election Day, this seems like a good time to revive a noble eating tradition.

History has it that this spiced raised cake was served during the festivities surrounding elections in Connecticut prior to the Revolution. The earliest recorded recipe for "Hartford Election Cake" was included in the second edition of Amelia Simmons' American Cookery, the first known cookbook written by an American, published at the turn of the 18th century.

Alas, Ms. Simmons' recipe isn't of much practical use for the modern home cook—it calls for 30 quarts of flour, 10 pounds of butter, 14 pounds of sugar, 12 pounds of raisins, 3 dozen eggs, 1 pint of wine, and 1 pint of brandy, among other ingredients. Fortunately in later years Fannie Farmer Merritt scaled the recipe back to a single loaf in The Boston Cooking-School Cook Book. While I'm loathe to use the f-word here (fruitcake, people, fruitcake!), Election Cake might well be considered a cousin of both the traditional, boozy, fruit studded English Christmas cake and a yeast raised Hot Cross Bun.
Sweet, but not overly so, this is a cake worth casting a vote for.

 About This Recipe

Yield:	20 (makes two loaves)
Active time:	30 minutes
Total time:	3 hours
Special equipment:	electric stand mixer, loaf pans, wire cooling rack
This recipe appears in:	American Classics: Election Cake

Ingredients

• For the Cake
• 2/3 cup warm water (105 to 115°F)
• 2 packages of active dry yeast (1/2 ounce)
• 4 cups all purpose flour
• 2 teaspoons cinnamon
• 1/2 teaspoon salt
• 1/2 teaspoon ground ginger
• 1/4 teaspoon ground cloves
• 1/4 teaspoon nutmeg
• 1 cup (2 sticks) unsalted butter, softened
• 2 large eggs, lightly beaten
• 2 cups firmly packed brown sugar
• 1 cup buttermilk
• 1 tablespoon vanilla
• 1 cup golden raisins
• 1/4 cup finely chopped figs
• For the Brandy Glaze:
• 1 cup confectioners sugar
• 1 tablespoon milk
• 1 tablespoon brandy
• 1/2 teaspoon vanilla

Procedures

1. 1
   Add warm water to the bowl of a stand mixer. Sprinkle yeast evenly over the surface and set aside for 5 minutes to let dissolve. Grease and flour two 8.5 inch loaf pans. Line the pan bottoms with parchment paper.
2. 2
   In a large bowl mix 3 cups of flour with cinnamon, baking soda, ginger, cloves, nutmeg and salt. Set aside.
3. 3
   Check to see that yeast has dissolved and that mixture is bubbling (if you don't see bubbles that means that your yeast is not good, and you'll have to try again proofing another batch of yeast). If yeast has dissolved and is bubbling then add one cup of flour, mixing thoroughly. Add butter and mix until well incorporated. Add sugar, buttermilk, and vanilla and mix until thoroughly combined. Add in eggs an mix until just combined. Lastly mix in flour, reserving a couple of tablespoons. Toss raisins and figs in remaining flour and then stir them into the cake batter. Loosely cover loaf pans with a light hand towel and leave to let rise for an hour and a half.
4. 4
   Preheat oven to 350°F. Bake loaves for 50 minutes to and hour or until a cake tester comes out clean. Place pans on wire racks to cool. Remove cakes from pans after 5 minutes or so.
5. 5
   In a medium bowl whisk together confectioners sugar, milk, brandy, and vanilla. Spoon over the tops of the fully cooled loaves and allow to drizzle down the sides.

Can you still win with less money?

The easy answer is yes, but it's harder. The more nuanced answer and the approach used by this campaign consulting team who often represents the underdog, hence less well funded, candidate, is that you can, if you plan wisely, strategize carefully, prioritize your spending and most of all, craft your message to perfecton.

Then it's a matter of shoe-leather and targeting. Shoe leather for you and volunteers who will walk with you to voters' homes as you deliver your walk pieces. And targeting to the voters who will vote in your election; the ones who vote most frequently, the ones who are most likely to "get" your message, when they get it at the door or in their mailbox.

Use humor, color and eye catching visuals on your materials. Make the best use of the space provided. Don't use the most words, Use the wisest, most appealing words to get the message across.

Walk precincts, stand in front of supermarkets; put something in your voters' hands, at their front doors, at community events, debates and the evening commute.

Phone, phone phone. If you must, use robo calls, but again, target carefully. Have a "celebrity" whose name will resonate with your voters. (It's not always the Mayor or the local representative who people want to hear from; it might be a well-loved high school coach or the lady who sells organic peaches at the Farmer's Market. It all depends on your district, your race, your message, your voters).

And never stop raising money. You don't have to have the most money, but you do have to have the most votes, and the money pays for printing, postage and all the incidentals. It's the last week? get that last $1000 for a targeted phone call, a humorous radio ad, or a much needed answer to a last minute "hit" by your opponent.

Win or lose, you will have done your very best, and can enjoy the party on Election Night with your loyal volunteers, who, believe me, will already by plotting the next campaign.

What we talk about when we talk about viability

Here's a dirty little secret of the campaign world. Specifically of those who endorse candidates for elective office.

They will send you questionnaires by the boatload. They will grill you on your positions on all the issues they care about. They will ask about your background and experience and judge how well you present yourself. They may tell you they are mightily impressed with your credentials.

Then they will ask about your viability. That's Viability, spelled M-O-N-E-Y. Yes, money is what they want to know about. How much of it do you have? How much can you raise? And how much do you need to win your election.

If the equation comes out lopsided, that is you don't have enough, or as much as the other guy, they are likely to decide your candidacy is not viable. Say bye bye to that endorsement you know you were most suited to receive.

And you thought it was all about qualifications to do the job, integrity and a willingness to work hard.

Sorry, Charlie, it's all about the money. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the key organizations don't endorse you because you don't have the money, you can't get the money from those who are waiting to see what the endorsers do. 

Nobody wants to back a loser, and they're not willing to take a chance on you by helping your campaign get off the ground with their endorsement and the contribution that usually goes with it.

And so it goes. This is how we get second rate candidates in office, who are beholden to special interests. They take the money from all and sundry, thereby looking "viable" to the endorsers.

They get the endorsement. They win the race, and then people are surprised when those they elected get caught in messy "pay to play" schemes, and are forced to leave their positions prematurely to "spend more time with their families."

Fighting Fire with Fire - Money with Money

In politics, you often end up using tools you have denounced when others use them. But you use them when you have no other choice. If you are being relentlessly attacked by an opponent who's got gazillions in the bank from corporate donors, polluters and hedge fund managers, you need to have a healthy war chest yourself.

This doesn't mean you take money from the bad guys. You seek out the good guys who share your values, and also coincidentally (lucky you!) have the means to back it up and infuse your campaign with much needed cash.

Until such time as we enact real campaign finance reform, that prevents corporate donations and independent expenditures, stops considering corporations as people, therefore imbued with the same First Amendment rights as a "natural" person, money is still very much needed in the political game.

And sometimes, money is the only weapon you have to check the alarming advancement of bigotry, climate change and ironically, income inequality.

See Tom Steyer as an example of someone with money who is using that money for good (we will suspend taking a deeper look at how he came about that money as a hedge fund manager for now) to fund campaigns against climate change deniers all over the Country. He is also seriously considering funding an oil extraction tax initiative in California, if the Legislature proves to be too beholden to major oil and gas companies for their campaign contributions, and the strings that those companies hold even on the floor of the legislature.

Politics is a game, and it can be a deadly one, but if you can't play in the big leagues you'll never be in a position to make serious change to the rules. Just be sure you adhere to some of your own. I advise my clients to look carefully at the sources of their donations. I advise against taking money from insurance companies, tobacco, pharmaceutical firms. And watch out for lofty sounding groups whose goals may not reflect the names they call themselves. (Example: Civil Justice Association of California, claiming to stop frivolous lawsuits, but actually seeks to limit the ability of consumers to sue businesses for unfair practices or damages, and supports maintaining a 1975 cap on damages awarded for pain and suffering to patients inured by doctors committing malpractice.)

In politics, as anything in a capitalist society, it's buyer beware. And if you don't, your opponents will. They are watching.