I remember once upon a time a political consultant telling me that Davis is not different from anywhere else, and while Davis may be more educated than the average city, the campaign tactics, tried and true, that work elsewhere, work in Davis. I’m not sure I really believe that.
The ordinary rule of thumb in any campaign is that if you get people talking about your campaign, commenting on your mail pieces, you have success. You see, few people pay much attention to campaigns. I know this is shocking for an audience that scrutinizes every little point raised by both parties, but I wonder how many people in Davis really know there will be an election in less than two weeks. And so, any piece that can get on the radar of the people, has to be a good one… Or so conventional wisdom will tell you.
He writes:
“Never have I seen a campaign brochure cause as many smiles as the heart-tugging ‘They used to call them barn raisings’ flier sent out by the Yes on Parlin campaign. Unfortunately, I don’t think smiling voters – or even giggling voters – is what the developer had in mind with this little gem.”
Ordinarily, I think a consultant would pay his weight in gold to evoke smiling and/ or giggling voters. But not in Davis, perhaps.
We have plenty examples of the rules book simply being thrown out in Davis, which makes it more interesting than the ordinary city. The Measure X campaign at this time claims it spent well over $600,000, which is up substantially from what they claimed at the end of the campaign, but still considerably less than the perhaps $1 million that many believe they really spent during the campaign. (As an aside, paid workers, you should see their list of paid workers, you would be shocked by some of the names on that list just as you would be shocked by the amount they paid, but that is just an aside). The Measure X campaign buried the town in paper, far outspent their opposition, and ended up with just over 40% of the vote for their troubles.
Target ended up winning in Davis, but by the narrowest of margins despite heavily outspending their opposition. They won running their green campaign on a facility that earned the lowest levels of LEED-certification. No matter that the rest of their business practices were decidedly un-green. They won largely because enough students voted and wanted a cheap and convenient shopping option in town. In most towns, Target would have won easily, in this town, Target is a veritable exception being able to win at all.
The same election, we had the PG&E campaign to prevent SMUD from being a public power option. PG&E dwarfed any other campaign in this area, dumping more than $10 million to scare the crap out of Sacramento voters and provide enough doubt in Yolo County voters, just in case. It worked, except of course in Davis which voted handily for SMUD over PG&E. The Vanguard was in its infancy back then, but still had a field day with the deceptive campaign that PG&E waged. My favorite was the use of the No on X logo to argue that PG&E was simply another link in the chain of Davis saying no to environmentally infeasible projects. Brilliant juxtaposition but it did not work, not in Davis.
We can go outside of issue campaigns as well. There was the battle between Christopher Cabaldon, Mayor of West Sacramento and Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada. Mayor Cabaldon was the odds on favorite to win the race and it was not even close. He had the money, the endorsements, the enthusiasm, everything but the unions on his side. He sent out his share of mailers, but it was the third party EdVoice, which he had helped to found, that was the true culprit here, carpet bombing Yolo and Solano Counties with mailers. Nasty and vile mailers at that. Many of them attacking his opponent in mean and unnecessary ways on things that she was not even to blame on at times. The campaign tactics turned off the voters and gave the union organizers the opening they needed to pull off one of the biggest upsets in recent memory and do so rather handily.
Flash back to the Dunning column, where he deconstructs the logic of Yes on P campaign piece and deems it to be creative but goofy. And that’s just the rub, in many places dorky (I’ll use my own outdated adjective) sells and in fact is encouraged to get the piece above the din of a campaign and the din of life. In Davis, perhaps less so.
For all of the attacks on Yes on P for being dorky and for all of the talk about trying to buy the race, keep in mind, that Yes on P has probably sent out a handful of pieces of that point which is far less than other campaigns. And while I think everyone would acknowledged that the campaign has made their share of mistakes along the way, at least to this point they have not littered the city in campaign pieces. If one is not going to carpet bomb in this day and age, you have to at least get the voters attention.
I will never forget running late into a meeting the candidate concerned that his car would be towed. This was nearly twenty years ago, but the campaign manager calmly said, I hope it is, then we can send out a press release.
Flashing forward, I remember laughing last year when a campaign worker for Yamada’s campaign, squealed with delight at the thought that Cabaldon’s car had been booted. I thought it was a joke, but it ended up on the news and in a lot of ways ended up being the turning point in the race. They were able to spin it as arrogance and convinced voters that Cabaldon got booted because he believed he was above the law. Campaigns and campaign messages are indeed tricky. Harmless and meaningless events can end up deciding an otherwise close race.
Campaigns are tricky things indeed. As a political scientist I studied campaign advertising and the consensus of the literature was that as time went on, people became more and more immune to campaign advertising just as they have become immune to regular advertising. The key for candidate then was brand identification just as it was for product marketing. If people know the name of the candidate, they are far more likely to vote for them than if they do not know the name. Every so often however, the campaign still is able to pierce above the din and capture the attention of the voter, but during most election it is simply one ad among hundreds shown each day from a variety of campaigns and it all just becomes noise.
This election is different in that it is the only race on the ballot. As such it garners more scrutiny, at least among those paying attention, but the smart money suggests few are. If 30% come out to the vote, that would be enormous for this type of election. How that effects the give and take is anyone’s guess. So the bottom line here, will dorky and memorable trump the deconstruction of facts? We’ll find out in a week and a half.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Yes, the YES folks have had strange brochures. Not sure dorky is the word I would use. Just silly. Tree hugging, fields with no houses and a barn when the barn WILL be torn down. Either poor advice or strange logic. My absentee is in.
Those who feel strongly on Measure P one way or the other will get out and vote. Those who don’t care that much won’t. I suspect truth works in campaign ads more than falsehoods or misrepresentations. The Parlin group would have been wise to have heeded my suspicion.
Everyone that I’ve spoken with about Measure P (and most of them are not political junkies like everyone in the comments section) think that the Yes on P mailers are ridiculous to the point of insulting.
Interesting that you boil it down to “dorky and memorable” Yes on P strategy VS “deconstruction of facts” No on P strategy.
Are you smarter than you let on David? Or do all of your grammar errors and obvious political machinations just throw up a smoke screen that I rarely see through?
Deconstruction is the process by which one rigorously examines the multiple truths/facts presented in a statement that ultimately exposes the contradictory, unstable or simply impossible foundation on which that statement was made. The “No on P” camp has done a wonderful job at that indeed, while “Yes on P” relies on a “it’s green (don’t ask questions), your green leaders know what’s best” strategy.
The voters of Davis want to be engaged and the campaign or candidate that offers the most honest and stimulating dialogue will often, not always, win.
Ultimatey the Yes on P flyers and their ridiculous messages must be the fault of their paid campaign manager Bill Ritter, and to dismiss his strategy as merely “dorky” rather than wholly incompetent is outrageous!
….”This election is different in that it is the only race on the ballot.” …
You are getting the election you bought and paid for.
….”This election is different in that it is the only race on the ballot.” …
You are getting the election you bought and paid for.
Unfortunately we are blessed/cursed with only one ‘local daily newspaper’, whose editorial board has utterly failed to present accurate information on any major project in the past 35 years. Coupled with a City government and successive City Councils whose idea of open records means ‘staff eyes only’, and who govern almost entirely through the use of the consent calendar, we still – in 2009 – are getting the same amount of information we did ca. 1945.
What works in Davis is quite simple and does not require a degree in political science. Treat the Davis voter with the respect that they deserve. Do not insult their intelligence with cynical campaign strategies. Do not try and hoodwink them. Allow them the time and opportunity to learn as much as they believe they need to make their decision. The Yes on P campaign failed in all aspects of these requirements.
“For all of the attacks on Yes on P for being dorky and for all of the talk about trying to buy the race, keep in mind, that Yes on P has probably sent out a handful of pieces of that point which is far less than other campaigns.”
I’m afraid I don’t see it that way, David. Although they have backed off recently, for a while I was receiving several mailers a week – very similar to the Yes On X campaign, but less than the Cabaldon campaign (which apparently had money coming out of its ears).
It surprised me that the Parlin campaign would be making the same mistakes that other recent unsuccessful campaigns had made, but then it hit me: political consultants get paid for creating mailers, ads and all sorts of deep campaign thinking. A campaign consultant would make far less money if s/he recommended and implemented a dialed-down campaign than if s/he developed a big campaign with frequent mailers depicting ironically pastoral settings of the type the campaign proposes to pave over.
Having seen the awful (in fact, offensive) over-the-top Covell and Cabaldon campaigns, you would think that their consultant would have recommended a more straightforward, facts-based campaign. Instead, it feels like more of the same – with one important difference.
Parlin’s consultant clearly called in all his chits from previous campaigns by bringing the local Sierra club co-chairs into the Parlin camp, a favor that I expect they will regret as it costs each of them dearly in future credibility. Yesterday’s photo in the Sacramento Bee of one of those co-chairs standing next to a horse on land that she supports converting to housing was absolutely surreal. It will take a long time to live that one down.
It was a serious campaign blunder to claim a net fiscal benefit to the city from the proposed subdivision. The claim seems to have been roundly debunked now, making the Parlin campaign feel like just another developer trying to pull a fast one on Davis voters. In the end, Parlin might have been better off putting this measure on a regular ballot, where it would be viewed in the context of larger issues.
Jimmy the Geek puts the odds of Measure P success at 7:4. Place your bets.
BTW, David, if you have the names of everyone on the Measure X payroll, I hope you will publish them. I’m sure it would be a very widely-read article.
Here are the latest campaign finance numbers (fresh from a review of the latest reports filed at City Clerk’s office)
No on P campaign has received about 5,300 in contributions….
Yes on P campaign has 240,000 in contributions; almost a 50:1 spending ratio!
Yes on P has 22 “salaried” employees (likely the college kids) making about 14,000 in wages; Denise Hofner was paid 660.00 for “literature” (does that include her Davis Enterprise Op-Ed piece and Letter to the Editor?)…No on P has NO salaried workers (including writers).
70,000 was spent on printing expenses (for those “dorky” brochures?); No on P has spent about 2,000 on campaign signs….
Yes on P also donated “civic contributions” 1,000 to Yolo County Concilio and 500 to Davis Community Meals…No on P has made no “civic” or political organization donations
Does money talk in Davis politics? We shall see Nov 3rd
I posted above the Yes on P 500.00 “civic” contribution to Davis Community Meals, an organization on whose Board of Directors is Hamza El-Nakhal, who wrote the following letter below to the Enterprise on October 20 (coincidence?):
LETTERS: Project will be good for Davis
Hamza El-Nakhal | Davis | October 20, 2009 08:15
I am writing in support of the Wildhorse Ranch development. I read several op-ed articles in The Davis Enterprise for and against Measure P. I am impressed by the city attorney’s impartial analysis of Measure P…
Rick Gonzalez (president of the Yolo County Concilio) is also listed on the Yes on P website under community endorsers….
….out walking in E. Davis(Mace Ranch) for No on P today. I saw my FIRST Yes on P lawn sign(actually two on the same property) amidst a forest of No on P signs, almost every house on the street. Let’s nail this one down in the next 12 days! Farmers Market on Saturday followed by Nugget. There are still precincts that need “walk and drop” for our very effective No on P flyer(a copy paper, black and white, Kinko product).
Hey, it’s great exercise…there’s East Davis and then there’s Mace Ranch, and ne’er the twain shall meet…in fact the latter could be contrued, if you live in East Davis, as Far West Sacramento. (gated, master-planned community).
Please, “yes on P” folks, stop filling my mailbox with fillers for my recycling bin. I honestly don’t even read the “yes” brochures anymore.
I now just consider them a waste of paper & ink (soy, recycled or whatever)that must require a lot of energy to produce & deliver ad nausem to every mailbox in town.
So, please, quit beating a dead horse. You made your point; now it’s time for the voters to decide.
(As an aside, even though I disagree with many of the “No on P” assertions, that campaign certainly quacks more like a true grassroots campaign than the incredibly-expensive “yes” recyclables.)
East Davis Dweller…. having “worked” Mace Ranch for both the Measure X campaign and now the NO on P campaign, your suggestion that Mace Ranch is monolithic and completely “foreign country” is not what I found. There are sections of Mace Ranch(I saw no gates or walls where I was) where you might feel quite at home.