|
Why Conservative Candidates Must Be Nice
Michael Medved's recent column makes it clear that conservative candidates must go out of their way to demonstrate that they are "nice." Here's why: Political Scientist Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute argues that the most effective candidates will always be "Nice Republicans" or "Tough Democrats." Voters automatically assume that Democrats are kind and generous (look at all the federal money they want to hand out in ambitious new programs) but these liberals have to somehow prove that they're also tough. Look at Bill Clinton's tireless efforts in this regard in 1992 (emphasizing his tough-on-crime credentials, presiding over an execution in the midst of the campaign, standing up to Afro-Centric rapper Sister Soulja, calling for a more hawkish foreign policy on the Balkans and China), and take note of Hillary's similar poses today.
When it comes to Republicans, on the other hand, the public assumes that their candidates are tough -- pro-defense, anti-crime, supportive of traditional values -- but the successful conservatives need to demonstrate that they're simultaneously "nice." In this context, the branding of George W. Bush as a "compassionate conservative" represented a political masterstroke.
Reagan managed to project as a "Nice Republican" through the sheer force of his personality, but he also went to great lengths to demonstrate his empathy for hard-working ordinary Americans crushed by Jimmy Carter's "stag-flation," or the billions of suffering victims under Communism. He also conveyed his warmth and kindness through optimism -- with his "Morning in America"/"Shining City on a Hill" ebullience that ultimately altered the mood of the country. Unfortunately, too many current Republican leaders and right wing commentators come across as angry, gloomy, apocalyptic and perpetually outraged about even trivial irritants (remember how poorly public condemnation of TeleTubbies or Sponge Bob served the conservative cause). In selecting a Presidential nominee, Republicans should seek the candidate who most closely resembles Reagan's cheerfulness and decency and avoid at all costs those who seem to revel in indignation, bitterness or desperation.
|
Your Occupation Matters
Whatever your occupation is before you run for political office, it will probably have some impact on how the voters perceive you when you do run. At least, that's what Peter Canellos of the Boston Globe thinks: Ever since George Washington, a former surveyor, mapped out a new nation, presidents have been defined by their original occupations. Ronald Reagan, the former movie actor, became the Great Communicator. Herbert Hoover, former engineer, organized one of the most complicated relief missions in history, saving millions from starvation after World War I. Woodrow Wilson, former college president, brought academic idealism to foreign policy with his Fourteen Points. ... The potential 2008 contenders include the usual mix of former military men (John McCain, Chuck Hagel), lawyers (Hillary Rodham Clinton , Rudolph iuGliani ) and longtime politicians ( Christopher Dodd , Joseph Biden ), along with a few others who had careers that don't often appear on resumes for high office.
Whatever your job is now, be prepared to leverage the strengths and incorporate it into your message (if and when you run for office). And, of course, be prepared to defend it, too. If you're a lawyer who represents DUI defendants, it's going to be an issue. If you're a DA who has used "plea bargains," it's going to' come up...
|
Why You're Not Normal (And Why This is the Greatest Political Lesson)
Mark Steyn has this to say about Newt Gingrich's speech at the NRO Conference: ... Newt gets about these occasions. He understands that, as was said at the summit, "normal" people don't sit in hotels on Saturday afternoons listening to policy presentations on tax reform and immigration. At almost every campaign training seminar I've ever spoken at, I stress the point that by virtue of attending a campaign training seminar, you've demonstrated that: "You're not normal."
... Why is it important to know you're not normal?
There's a psychological term called projection. It means that people tend to attribute their beliefs to others (if you're nice, you think everyone is nice. If you're a thief, you think everyone is a thief). Of course, this is misguided. Not everyone is nice, nor is everyone a thief.
Sadly, political operatives and insiders often make the same mistake; they incorrectly project their attributes on to others. Primarily, they assume that everyone else cares as much about politics as they do. This is a huge mistake because while the average person attending a campaign training seminar may be a political junkie, the average voter spends just seven minutes a week thinking about politics.
Dick Morris once said, "The hardest thing in politics is to be an insider and think like an outsider." He was right -- but this task is the most important task that an insider must accomplish. Thinking you are normal is actually very dangerous in politics. Here's why: If you assume everyone is like you, then you will fail to simplify your message to appeal to the masses. You will use big words that William F. Buckley might enjoy (because, after all, you enjoy Bill Buckley -- and you read the Washington Post every day... and you listen to Rush Limbaugh every afternoon, and ...). And, if you're "normal", you won't bother with a GOTV effort, because, after all, if you vote every Election Day, why wouldn't everyone else? In short, thinking you're normal makes you come up with a stupid message that will only appeal to people who already support your candidate. And it will make you come up with a stupid strategy that will ultimately fail to appeal to the average person.
The people who determine elections -- the swing voters -- aren't like you (if you're a political junkie, that is). So the real task is to be able to put yourself in the shoes of the average guy ("Joe Six-Pack, as they say).
One of the most important lessons you can learn in politics is that: You're Not Normal!
|
How Edwards Can Be "The Poor Man's Candidate"
Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham writes: "A recent New Republic article asked how Edwards had become the 'poor man's candidate,' touring the country's labor unions and strike sites with comfort." My answer: Because perception is reality. Image guru's can sometimes make a rich man look poor and a poor man look rich. Here are a few past examples: The son of a Quaker blacksmith, Herbert Hoover was a self-made man who became one of the greatest humanitarians of the 20th century. Prior to being elected president, Hoover worked to help those suffering from the Great Mississippi flood, and gave millions away to help war-torn Europe. According to Wikipedia, "The the Finns have even added the word hoover, meaning "to help," to their language in honor of his two years of humanitarian work." Hoover's successor, FDR, was a rich kid from Hyde Park, New York. Because of the Great Depression, Hoover (the self-made man/humanitarian) is remembered as being "uncaring," while FDR (the rich man) is celebrated as the "poor man's president." A more recent example is in the world of heavyweight boxing and, to be more specific, the Muhammad Ali/Joe Frazier trilogy."Smokin' Joe" was a dark-skinned son of a sharecropper who grew up on the mean streets of Philadelphia. Conversely, Muhammad Ali was an educated middle-class kid who went to the Olympics and defied the draft. Ali called Frazier "ugly," "a gorilla," and an "Uncle Tom." Ali won the PR battle for "streed credibility." Frazier became a "poseur." Go figure. (Ali was a PR genious who did the same thing to George Forman in Africa). Perception is reality. It's a crazy world, but if FDR can be "the poor man's president" -- and Ali can have more "street cred" than "Smokin' Joe," then I guess John Edwards can get away with being "the poor man's candidate." Of course, RFK did a pretty good job of being the "poor man's candidate, too." Come to think of it, maybe it's the hair?
|
What Will Be the Big Trend in '08?
Today's Hotline features quotes from political consultants on the topic of '08 campaign trends: As for how the money will be spent in '08, political pundit/founding CEO of Air America Radio Mark Walsh says it will be heavily concentrated on the "gotcha" moment. Each camp will assign a staffer to strictly follow the opponent in the hopes of catching another "macaca" ... Conversely, Campaign Solutions Chair Becki Donatelli, who served as Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) lead Internet consultant in his WH '00 run and is currently representing his '08 exploratory cmte, believes consultants get hung up on trends because it makes them feel ahead of the game ...
... Aristotle Int'l's Peter Kelly adds that new inventions, such as the iPhone, will "not change things radically, but will accelerate the adoption" of mobile usage in campaigns.
Some techniques will just be perfected upon. For instance, Mobile Accord co-founder/CEO Dan Weaver, who has worked with the RNC and CA Gov. Arnold schwarzenegger (R), says customized ring tones in support of candidates will pop
up in '08 ...
|
Blue Ties Are "In" for Politicians
|
Rudy's Campaign Plan Revealed
My last campaign email tip was on the topic of writing a Campaign Plan (if you don't receive my campaign tips, sign up here). Now, you can get the entire Giuliani campaign plan online (PDF). Of course, your local campaign plan will be much shorter and simpler than that of a presidential candidate. But, if you read my campaign tip, I think you will see that -- no matter the level of office you're running for -- every campaign plan has the same elements in it. Enjoy.
|
The Country's Best Communicators
|
The Lazio Lesson
 If you're a male candidate who is running for office against a female candidate, you might want to alter some of your tactics, accordingly. Today's Hotline reports: Los Angeles Times' Thomas writes, "... Men can'' run against a woman the way they run against other men." Ex-Rep. Rick Lazio (R-NY) "learned" this in his '00 SEN bid against HRC. "During a debate, Lazio left his lectern and invaded her personal space to make a point. Many voters saw a man trying to physically intimidate a woman and Lazio lost the debate and the election" (1/23).
|
A Picture Worth 1000 Words
 A Picture is worth a thousand words. And a good picture (like this one) is what every campaign dreams of. That's because people are more likely to judge you based on how you look than on the actual words you say. So if you're a political candidate, it's important to realize that every person (or item) on stage will either detract or enhance your "message." It really doesn't matter who is standing in front of the candidate -- in the audience (the audience usually won't make it into the picture). What matters more is that there are people standing behind you on stage. It's also important that you have double-sided signs. If your signs only point to the stage, they don't make it into the picture.
|
Candidates Should Carefully Craft First Impressions
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza does a good job of describing the importance of a campaign announcement: The announcement of a candidacy for president can leave a lasting impression.
While it's only a single day in a marathon campaign, it's also the first glimpse that many voters get of a candidate. And, as we all know, first impressions matter. He's right. Whether you're running for President of City Council, first impressions matter. At the same time, I've seen a lot of candidates have great announcements, only to fizzle. An announcement is important, but it should also be thought of as just the opening salvo of a very long campaign ...
|
Words That Work
Liz Mair of the moderate-Republican group GOPProgress has a good interview up with Frank Luntz, author of the new book, Words That Work. Here's an excerpt: Liz Mair: OK, next question. What do you think the most important words will be for politicians to use over the next few years, in order to attract the support of the maximum number of voters? I know you talk about bipartisanship, or non-partisanship as a pretty important theme, in your book.
Frank Luntz: Accountability is number one. The public wants to know that you are accountable and responsible for your actions, and for your success or failure. If you can demonstrate accountability, you will be re-elected.
Number two is getting things done. The public is tired of rhetoric, talk, argument and negativity. They want candidates who have a demonstrated record of success and they will vote for people who they believe can actually get it done.
Number three is solving our conscience crisis. There's a great degree of anxiety and fear out there. We want to be led by individuals that we know won't crumble when things get tough. Number four is reform. It's not about being a conservative, or being a Republican. It's about being on the side of change, on the side of reform. On the side of making government more responsive and more effective, which almost always means making it smaller--but not always. The battle over big versus small government in the minds of the electorate is over. They're not asking for smaller government anymore, they're asking for better government, more effective government. And that calls for reform of institutions. One more: common sense. There's this belief that when you get elected to office, you lose your ability to listen and respond to the average American. The public wants to feel like the people they elect get it. And common sense is in way too short of supply, particularly in Washington.
|
Consultant Candids
Today's Hotline (from National Journal) features an interview with Susan DiLiddo Michels, a Sr. VP at GMMB, a Democrat political consulting and advocacy advertising firm. Here's an excerpt from the interview:
Negative campaigning -- good or bad?
Negative campaigning is not a recent phenomenon. It's as old as time and human nature. The Romans campaigned negatively; Shakespeare dedicated an entire play to negative campaigning -- Richard III. Factually accurate ads that give the public information they would not otherwise know are important to the democratic process.
|
Campaign Lifer Says Raising Money is Hardest Part
The Washington Post has a great article today about this political "nomad" who has been managing campaigns for 20 striaght years. This is exactly why your parents warned you to get a real job! But after 20 years, it's no surprise that he has learned a few things. So here's my favorite excerpt: Toughest job: Finding a candidate who knows how to ask for money.
One time Dodson got a sermonette from a man ready to donate $1,000 to a client's campaign, but when he realized that the candidate found it too distasteful to ask for money, sent $250 instead. The supporter called Dodson and said, "You better straighten your guy out."
Rule is: Candidates must know how to raise big bucks.
He says: "It's a numbers game. The more calls you make; the more money you raise." Yep. He's exactly right. And the good news is: I figured that out in half the time!
|
Whats' the Election About? Answer That Question, And You'll Know Who Wins
Part of developing a persuasive message is making sure your message starkly contrasts you from your opponent(s). The key is to: 1. Find the difference that favors you, and 2. Argue that your benefit (whatever it is), is the most imporant attribute any candidate can give the voters this election. Today's Washington Post features a classic example of how two potential presidential candidates will try to position themselves -- and define the election: Obama will cast the contest as the future vs. the past. Clinton can counter with experience vs. inexperience. If voters walk into the polls believing that we need a new generation of leader, Obama wins. But if voters walk into the polls believing that we need someone who has the experience to lead, then Hillary wins. So every speech Obama gives is really about a "new generation/inspirational new leadership, etc." And every speech Hillary gives is really about "who has the experience to lead?" If Obama's asked a question about experience, he changes the subject to "future." If Hillary is asked a question about "future," she says, "That's great, but we need someone with the experience to lead us there." That's called staying on message ...
|
More on Mitt's Innovative Fundraising
Last week, I reported on Mitt Romney's innovative fundraising methods. Yesterday, Gov. Romney appeared on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, and here's what he had to say about his fundraising: This was a new approach to fundraising, which is that we...instead of going around the country and having big parties, and asking people to write checks, which is of course very expensive and very time consuming, we instead had some of my key supporters come here from all over the country, they got on the phones, we had about 400 people who got on phones, and connected to internet, where they could see people's names and addresses and so forth. They called friends, and asked them to make contributions, and people made contributions with credit cards right over the internet. And so we collected the majority of that money on the spot, and at the same time, did it in a very cost effective way. It was a new advance in fundraising in the political world. If you are a local candidate, you won't be able to match Gov. Romney's numbers. But you can use the same techniques to keep fundraising overhead low. Nothing is stopping you from setting up a website that can accept credit cards via PayPal. Then, you can have your supporters come to your headquarters and make calls. You won't get 400 supporters, but you might get 20 supporters to take you up on this ...
|
How to Go Out (If You're Turned Out)
As a native Marylander, I'm obviously sad to see Gov. Bob Ehrlich go. Today's Washington Post features a story about Ehrlich's farewell tour. If you're going to lose an election, this is the way to do it. He's still looking to the future (and already starting to build for his next campaign). Here's an excerpt of the article: Fliers asking backers for their addresses and encouraging them "to keep in touch" were placed on picnic tables ... How many candidates -- having just lost a tough election -- would be smart enough to still think about the future? You never know if you'll run again, but just in case, you want to go out in a gracious manner. And you also want to go out with a good list of supporters. Bob Ehrlich has done both. If you're turned out, that's how to go out ...
|
YouTube's Not Just for Pol's
Pat Hynes has a good column about how YouTube has become a good medium for damage control. As he points out, it's not just politicians who are utilizing this technology. Here's an excerpt: YouTube isn't just for political bickering and banter. Smart corporations recognize the power of web-based video-on-demand, too. Coffee giant Starbucks found itself the subject of a YouTubing in mid-December when Oxfam America posted video of protesters demonstrating outside Starbucks locations. The protesters said they were standing up for "Ethiopian coffee farmers' rights."
Two days later Dub Hay, the head of the Starbucks Coffee Team took to YouTube to
explain why Ethiopian coffee farmers make so little money. It's a fairly esoteric answer that has more to do with trade agreements than corporate greed, but the point is, Starbucks didn't just sit around and ignore the bad press. It responded swiftly and in kind. And, frankly, Starbucks looked more reasonable than its detractors because of it.
Nevertheless, we New Media-minded, crisis-management oriented politicos (and I definitely included myself in that we) may be getting a little too nerdy about the new communications opportunities presented to us by YouTube. As of this writing, roughly 5,500 people had watched the Romney rebuttal video. During roughly the same period of time, 1.3 million people watched a video from Dove Soap promoting its make-your-own-commercial contest.
|
Paying it Forward on the Campaign Trail
Morton Blackwell says "A well run movement takes care of it's own." In the spirit of that maxim, it's very nice to see that George Allen is trying to help his former staffers find jobs. Kudos to him for looking out for them. I hope he is working the phones for them, too. If you are a candidate or a campaign manager, it's important to remember your team ... even after the race ends.My good freind John Gizzi recently wrote an excellent column about his belief that conservatives are less likely to help their conservative friends find a job. His column opens up with the observation that, " Democrats get people jobs. Republicans take people's resumes." John argues persuasively that this is one of the reasons that Democrat causes never die. He also proves the point that: "Strong political movements succeed, in the words of Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner, 'not by subtraction and division but by addition and multiplication'."
|
surge (surj) n. 1. a sudden increase . . . in political parlance
Words matter. They define the debate. So it's no wonder that both sides of the political spectrum fight over the lexicon. Some words (like ideology) sound bad. Other words (like philosophy) sound good. (Never mind the fact that the words mean nearly the same thing). President Bush is wise to avoid the word "escalation," when he is talking about increasing the number of troops in Iraq. Of course, the other side knows what he is doing. And they don't want to let him get away with it. Here's what today's Washington Post has to say about it: "Surge" falls into "the Orwellian zone between language and politics," says Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which studies and evaluates the media. "The president and his advisers would be remiss if they didn't come up with a term suited to their new policy. But journalists would be equally remiss if they just thoughtlessly repeated the term without pondering the policy and its implications." The liberals would love you to believe that (unlike surge) escalation is a neutral word -- that it is more honest than surge. But the truth is that the term "escalation" isn't neutral -- it already has a negative connotation (the word was tainted by LBJ and Vietnam). Word meanings change over time. In fact, our perception of everything changes. Let me give you an example: In 1920, the visual image of a smokestack would make you feel happy. It would signal prosperity. But today, the image of a smokestack would mean pollution. Smokestacks haven't changed, but our perceptions of them have. The bottom line is that it is up to you to avoid the trap of using the language of your opponents.
|
Four Fundraising Lessons From Mitt Romney
In case you missed it, yesterday Mitt Romney organized a massive phone bank that raised $6.5 million -- and garnered him some good earned media. Not bad for a day's work (especially when someone else is doing the work!). This was a smart campaign move. As Patrick Ruffini writes: The most precious resource in any campaign is the candidate's time. The first half of the year will see each of the Big Three traveling to an unholy number of cities to do an unfathomable number of fundraising events. What's more, these events are very expensive to put on. Now, obviously, your local campaign won't raise $6.5 million. But you can still learn these four lessons from Romney's big day: 1. The best way to raise money is to ask. 2. Events have a lot of over-head costs (including time). Asking for money over the phone doesn't cost much. 3. If you're creative, you can get earned media out of your fundraising. 4. Like Tom Sawyer, it's always good to have others do the work for you. Now get to it ...
|
Most Conservatives Don't "Get" Messaging
I come from a campaign/public affairs background. Most bloggers come from a journalism or policy background. So I guess it's no wonder I don't always see eye-to-eye with conservative bloggers. .. I just came from one such meeting. In fairness, it is very cool that Rob Bluey and Tim Chapman organize these meetings. I'm all for sharing information and being briefed on the important matters of the day. Today's meeting involved a briefing by Ken Johnson of Pharma. Ken was there because the pharmaceutical industry has come under attack from politicians who want to institute price controls (essentially Socialism). Ken is clearly one smart cookie who understands how to craft a message. If you're a frequent reader of this blog, you know that every message requires the following components: emotion, contrast, connection, and credibility. Ken gets this. His message about the pharmaceutical industry involves all the right components. For example, he contrasts what the world will look like in 10 years if America has the best and safest drugs, versus what the world will look like in 10 years if America quits doing drug research (and discovering new cures for diseases). Of course, this also has an "emotional" component -- and it "connects" with average folks (who could picture themselves -- or a loved one -- needing a cure some day). Based on the briefing, it is clear that Ken understands that without credibility, he has no message. That's why the industry launched several campaigns to let folks know the good things the pharmaceutical industry is doing. Here's where I have my differences with some conservative bloggers: Ken kept getting questions about whether or not his industry was going to do anything to educate Americans about how price controls are really Socialistic -- and about how they are anti-Free Market. While I agree philosophically that: 1. Price controls are anti-American, and 2. Most businesses and industries don't do a good job of standing up to the liberals, I think it is extremely naive to expect any industry to spend their time educating the public about the Free Market -- especially when they should spend their time and energy actually fighting the battle before them (of course, the bloggers disagreed with me). Of course, it makes sense that bloggers -- the very people who spend their lives devoted to educating the public about the conservative cause -- would expect others to do the same. But the very reason Ken was at the meeting was, no doubt, to enlist bloggers to help educate the public (or, at least, a targeted group of conservative leaders who are actually likely to care about such things). It also shouldn't surprise me that many conservatives still haven't learned that you don't win an election -- or a Legislative battle, for that matter -- by educating the public -- or by arguing logic. In fact, it is axiomatic that in politics, if you're educating, you're losing. Logical arguments rarely persuade anyone. As a wise man once said, "logic leads to conclusions and emotion leads to action." (Sadly, this flies in the face of conservatives who care deeply about the issues and believe they can win public policy battles through debate and intellectual discussion). Here's a fictitious example to illustrate what I'm getting at: The conservative "educational" argument: " The Founding Fathers intent was for a Free Market. But if we allow one industry to become Socialized, it's just a matter of time before all the dominos fall. We must preserve Adam Smith's "invisible hand ..." (This message might resonate with you and me, but it won't resonate with the average person).
The liberal "emotional" argument: " I just don't think we should have American senior citizens have to cut their pills in half and make the choice between putting food on the table or getting the medicine they so desperately need. "
... Ok. Be honest. Which argument would the AVERAGE American buy? You and I both know it's the emotional argument. The final reason candidates and industries (who are currently engaged in battles) should not be expected to educate is because today's media environment moves fast. It relies on sound bites. In short, a spokesman can either spend his time getting your persuasive message out -- or you can spend your scarce time allotment trying to save the world. Please note that I obviously don't have a problem with pedagogy. I mean, Rush Limbaugh is on the air for three hours every day. We also have think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. And we also have plenty of conservative authors and opinion leaders who are more than happy to argue about what's right and what's wrong. My take on this issue put me at odds with the bloggers who are more passionate about the issues, but adhere to the Barry Goldwater model of persuasion (which is to argue with enough people until you lose) ...
|
Using Facebook to Organize Your Campus
|
Better than Ezra
For a blogger, Ezra Klein of Tapped has tapped into a 20th century mentality. Regarding the spreading of ideology through books, he writes: ... the conservative movement is rife with them. A simply stunning number of institutions arose in the 40s and 50s that did nothing but disseminate and popularize books setting out the conservative economic worldview to the country. The focus was, quite literally, on creating conservatives. Not Republicans, not GOP voters, but ideologues of a certain brand and style, whose foundational world view, rather than mere partisan allegiance, would be aligned with the movement. Liberals in this day and age, despite facing a moment not altogether dissimilar from mid-century conservatives, have not embarked on on similar educational strategy. Indeed, the books most likely to be publicized by progressives are partisan tracts laying out the case against the Bush administration or the Republican Party, not explications of the liberal worldview and persuasive literature arguing for its adoption. I can't even think of many books written for popular consumption that attempt to provide such a rigorous education.
Ezra's point about books is valid, but he acts as if books are the only means of mass instruction (how 1990s). And, in doing so, he overlooks the fact that the liberals (in this day and age) are adept at using cutting-edge technology -- not just books -- to indoctrinate. For example, here is just one example of a video that airs every day on MTV. (Hat tip to Jim Eltringham for pointing this out to me) As you will see, this video does not just advocate an "anti-Bush" position, it fosters an anti-Free Market ideology (some would call this Communism). And because of the catchy music and cartoon animation, it is much more appealing to the youth of America than, say, Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind.The real question isn't: "Why don't liberals write books." The real question is: "Why aren't conservatives using technology better?"
|
Bad Ideas But Good Visuals
 Well, you've got to at least give Nancy Pelosi credit for engineering a good photo-op ...
|
Why Groupthink Happens
I was just reading this Slate article, which makes the point that College football is more innovative than the NFL -- and this quote caught my attention: By doing the same thing as every other guy with a clipboard, NFL coaches inoculate themselves from criticism. You know, it occurs to me that NFL coaches have a lot in common with a lot of political consultants. Sure, most consultants want to win their race -- but (unlike many of their losing candidates), consultants make a career out politics. And they've got their reputation to think of. So many of them play it safe and do what every other consultant does (when they should go for it on the 4th down ...)
|
Who Were the Best & Worst Communicators of 2006?
 Communications expert Bert Decker has a list of the 10 best and 10 worst communicators of 2006.
|
Patrick Ruffini's Reading List for 2006
If you've read all my Read to Win books, and are looking to read a good book or two, Patrick Ruffini has an excellent reading list of books he read in 2006. Following are the books on his list that I can personally recommend to you: The Way to Win, by Mark Halperin and John Harris Applebee's America, by Matthew Dowd, Douglas Sosnik, and Ron Fournier An Army of Davids, by Glenn Reynolds Crashing the Gate, by Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga Politics Lost, by Joe Klein Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell Moneyball, by Michael Lewis
|
Why A Great Woman Is Behind Every Great Man
|
George Allen's Last Game of Poker
 From the Rightometer: Former Rep. Jack Kingston Blogger David All on his blog has a two part essay focusing on the online Success of the Senator George Allen's "Macaca Controversy" and provides a plan to ensure it never happens again. Here is Part 1 & Part 2. Here's an excerpt: What if upon seeing the video, George Allen's team cobbled together a response from George Allen to the camera, and then post that clip immediately on YouTube with a title like, "George Allen apologizes for Macaca statement"? They could have even posted the video as a "video response" on the ripped version on YouTube.
Or ...
What if George Allen's team had added 30-seconds to the front and end of the excerpt to add some context for the clip? The Allen campaign could have used tag keywords like: "George Allen Macaca," "Jim Webb," "Macaca," and helped dillute the authority of the original clip and hope that fatigue would wear on viewers looking for the soundbite.
If you're the least bit interested in how politics and technology collide, this is a must-read!
|
Consultant Helps Democrats Appeal to Religious Voters
|
|
Digg This | 
Facebook | 
Technorati
