Perhaps this is a Dog Bites Man kind of story...

... but, it appears that campaign ads are getting nastier and nastier. A recent article in CQ indicates that a number of factors have converged in 2006 to make this the most negative campaign ever. First of all, there's the fight between Republicans and Democrats for control of the House and Senate. Second, there's all the fodder that both parties have thrown toward the campaigns (either willingly or unwillingly) in terms of scandals and ethics problems. Finally, of course, there's the ongoing disagreement over the war and whether as a country we're doing OK or whether we're on the verge of a horrific terrorist attack or economic collapse. For the party in power, that's a fine line to walk. For the party out of power, it's been difficult to deliver a cohesive message on what their candidates would do differently.

Unfortunately, negativity seems to work, especially when campaigns are sophisticated enough to "narrow-cast" their messages in such a way as to reach segments of the population with specific negative messages that focus on what those individuals care most about. Campaigns have the ability to run ads that, for example, tell people who have self-identified as "concerned about security" how the "other guy" will leave them open to terrorist threats and attacks. That "gets them where they live" as it were, and is tremendously effective.

Check out the article online here: http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/10/
midterm_meanness_negative_ads.html

The Politics of Marriage

Did anyone else see the really interesting USA Today article a few weeks ago on the "marriage divide" in politics? Turns out that the 25 districts with the highest percentage of married people are ALL Republican held and that the 25 districts with the lowest percentage of married people are ALL held by Democrats. Only ONE of the top 50 districts with the highest rates of married couples (and that's, ummm, traditionally married couples), is represented by a Democrat. That's pretty astounding and clearly indicates a "marriage divide."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-26-marriage-gap_x.htm

Further, the Democratic-controlled seats also tend to have fewer traditional two parent households than the Republican-controlled seats, which explains why the parties talk about children's issues differently. Chris Cannon from, not surprisingly, Utah, has the most number of children in his district. The vast majority of them (84%) are in two parent households. In another district with a high number of children, Jose Serrano's in New York City, only 29% of the kids live in two parent households. This fact offers startling evidence as to why the two members talk about "family issues" in completely different ways.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-26-fertility-gap_x.htm

Coming soon to a townhall near you

Congress is out of Washington, DC (I can tell, because there are more parking spaces), and its members are hitting the campaign trail hard. Now's the time for concerned citizens to check in with their elected officials to see where they stand on the issues you care about. I remember working on a campaign one election year, making phone calls to voters that had expressed strong views about gun control (they were for it, as was the candidate I was working for). I talked to one very nice lady who told me that she had already sent in her ballot and had voted for the other candidate. I asked her what other issues had changed her mind, since she and the candidate I was working for agreed on gun control. Her response? "Oh, I didn't know that. Is there anyway I can get my ballot back?"

Don't let that happen to you! If you fell strongly about an issue ask your elected officials and their opponents where they stand on that issue. You want to be sure to support the people that reflect your views and values.

You can find out about campaign events by contacting the campaign offices of the candidates. Information is usually available through your State Board of Elections or through a google search. You can also check in with the Democratic National Committee (www.democrats.org) or the Republican National Committee (www.rnc.org) for more information.

Evidence that the Personal Approach Works

Long time readers of the blog and related tipsheet know that I like to go on and on about how advocates should focus less on facts figures and statistics and more on telling a personal story. Well, an article in the Washington Post offers evidence for this assertion -- and suggests that the power of the compelling anecdote goes both ways.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/17/AR2006091700401_pf.html

Studies dating back to the 1930's have demonstrated that emotional appeals are essential to any winning strategy. The aticle notes the ". . . mordern research confirms that unless political ads evoke emotional responses, they don't have much effect. Voters . . need to be emotionally primed in some way before they will pay attention."

I know this will shock you, but elected officials are people too! They respond to the same types of emotional appeals. Consider that the next time you pick up a pen or sit down in front of a keyboard to craft a message.

What Leaders Do

My next edition of the tipsheet is out at www.advocacyguru.com/tipsheet.htm and it offers up my 10 Principles for Effective Leadership. I'm including three of them here --

How did I start thinking about this? Well, recently, my husband and I became obsessed with HGTV’s “Design Star,” one of those – you guessed it – reality shows. In this show’s iteration of that time-honored format, the grand prize for the last-standing designer is the opportunity to host their own HGTV design show. Apparently, there aren’t enough design shows in the world right now. At any rate, it’s over and (spoiler alert) David won.

In the midst of the show, however, one of the other designers was asked to lead a project. She had some very, umm, interesting ideas about what leadership means. To her, it meant telling everyone they were a team, writing them a nice note, and then hoping the project would get done. It didn’t. But the episode made me think about what leadership REALLY means. And since leadership is integral to any grassroots advocacy organization, I thought I’d give you my 10 principles for leadership.

Here are the first three -- the remainder are at www.advocacyguru.com/tipsheet.htm

1. Leaders Build and Present a Clear Vision: Leaders may not always be 100% sure of where they want to go. However, true leaders recognize that if they don’t have a clear vision, they need to work with others to build one before embarking on a project. True leaders also understand how to present that vision clearly and concisely so that everyone knows where the organization is headed. In applying this to the advocacy world, make sure you are presenting a clear vision of your overall goal, whether it’s passage of a bill, building a much larger and stronger network or world domination.

2. Leaders are Willing to Alter That Vision: If there are material reasons why the ultimate goal as originally outlined simply cannot be achieved, leaders will recognize that a change is needed. They will work with others to identify a new (and better) direction. For advocates, that means (for example) seeking a regulatory approach when a legislative avenue is closed. Or giving up on world domination and settling for peace on earth.

3. Leaders Are Benevolent, not Dictators: Many people believe they are “leading” when they bark out orders based on some plan for success that they (and only they) have in mind. They may say “well, I’m the leader and I know the plan, so people should just do what I say.” This is the “because I said so” approach to leadership. It didn’t work for your parents when you were 12. It probably won’t work for you now (except in a few high-pressure situations usually involving either the military or rent-a-cops). In the advocacy world, this translates into the “you have to do what I say, because I pay your salary” argument that some advocates make. Actually, if you live in a U.S. House district, you pay 1/750,000th of a House member’s salary. That 23 cents isn’t going to get you very far.

Want to hear the rest? Go to www.advocacyguru.com/tipsheet.htm

I Voted!

At least, that's what the sticker says that I got from the polling place. Today was Primary day in Washington, DC, and I feel like the long siege is over. For those who don't know DC, a number of factors have come together this year to make it one of the busiest election seasons ever. First of all, DC has a long tradition of voting almost exclusively Democratic (something like 70% of registered voters are democrats). So, whoever wins the Democratic primary will usually win the election. All campaigning is done around the primary. Second, we have an open mayoral seat, an open seat for Council chair, and several open Ward council member seats. This has made it even crazier than usual.

For weeks we've been hiding in our house with the shades drawn to avoid the 4 to 5 people showing up at our door every weekend day to ask for our vote. Yesterday we had 13 phone messages -- all of the taped variety from various campaigns -- all deleted after the first 10 seconds (note to people doing taped calls -- tell us who you're calling on behalf of in the first sentence). Frankly, it was getting a little irritating. That's right, you heard me. The Advocacy Guru was irritated by the electoral process.

But today, as I navigated through the 20 people all huddled around the "no electioneering beyond this point" sign, I realized how lucky we are to live in a society were people care enough to irritate us for weeks on end. Regardless of whether we think their ideas make sense, are right for the community and fit with our values, we are truly fortunate to have so many people who care enough about DC to want to go through the grueling process of a campaign. When you think about it, that's pretty cool.

Congress and the Truth

The Washington Post recently ran an interesting article on research showing that -- prepare to be shocked -- Congressional debates often involve only half-truths and misleading statements. I know. It's hard to believe...

In fact, the research shows that about 75% of "factual" statements made during a debate are inaccurate. It is unclear whether members of Congress know that what they are saying isn't correct -- often they are relying on information provided to them from often biased sources. In addition, there is the issue of half-truths. During debate, members of Congress may tell only half the story, basically picking and choosing the pieces of information that help them make their point.

Many people will be shocked and horrified by this information, but I'm not sure why. The point of any legislative debate is to win, right? Why would our elected officials be any different than any other organization or business trying to get their message across? Does Coca-cola say "oh, by the way, too much caffiene and sugar can be bad for you." They don't want you to make an "informed decision." They want you to buy their product.

We may wish that Congress and other deliberative organizations were different, but the reality is they aren't. And as long as there are human beings involved (and winners and losers) it's going to be pretty much the same. That's why it's critical for citizens and interested organizations to get as much of the correct information out there as they can.

I just hope they didn't try to measure the accuracy of statements like "I have great respect for the gentleman from [insert name of state here]." I think those are probably true even less of the time...

To see the article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/05/AR2006090501326_pf.html