Campaigning in the Twenty-First Century

Activism, Big Data, and Dark Money

Dennis W. Johnson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781138122192
• eBook ISBN: 9781317307440
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: American Government
• Index: Politics & International Relations

In view of the 2016 US election season, the second edition of this book analyzes the way political campaigns have been traditionally run and the extraordinary changes that have occurred since 2012. Dennis W. Johnson looks at the most sophisticated techniques of modern campaigning—micro-targeting, online fundraising, digital communication, the new media—and examines what has changed, how those changes have dramatically transformed campaigning, and what has remained fundamentally the same despite new technologies and communications.

Campaigns are becoming more open and free-wheeling, with greater involvement of activists (especially through social media) and average voters alike. At the same time, they have become more professionalized, and the author has experience managing and marketing the process. Campaigning in the Twenty-First Century illustrates the daunting challenges for candidates and professional consultants as they try to get their messages out to voters. Ironically, the more open and robust campaigns become, the greater is the need for seasoned, flexible, and imaginative professional consultants.

New to the Second Edition

• Includes coverage of the 2012 and 2014 elections, looking ahead to 2016.
• Updates coverage of campaign finance since the landmark Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
• Adds to the discussion of demographic and technological changes in elections since 2012.

1 The Modern Campaign

DOI: 10.4324/9781315650586-1

Congrats@LindseyGrahamSC. You just got 4 points in your home state of SC—far better than zero nationally. You’re only 26 pts behind me.

—Donald Trump tweet, August 25, 2015; @realDonaldTrump

So while Hillary Clinton and John McCain set out to run the last campaign all over again, [Barack] Obama forged ahead and ran the first campaign of the twenty-first century.

—Garrett M. Graff (2009)

The [Scott] Brown campaign employed iPhone apps, YouTube videos, hashtags and Facebook to turn a long-shot, shoestring campaign into a much broader political movement. [Martha] Coakley, says Rob Willington, Brown’s social-media strategist, never knew what she was up against. “We ran circles around her,” he says, “It was incredible.”

—Sophia Yan, Time (2010)

It was an operatic fall from power, swift and deep and utterly surprising. As late as Tuesday morning, [Eric] Cantor had felt so confident of victory that he spent the morning at a Starbuck’s on Capitol Hill, holding a fundraising meeting with lobbyists while his constituents went to the polls.

—Washington Post (2014)

On election night in November 2008, Chicago’s Grant Park was brimming with excitement and electricity, as Barack Obama ascended the stage to acknowledge the hundreds of thousands of well-wishers and to give his first speech as president-elect. The spectacle was beamed world wide as billions of television viewers caught a glimpse of the new president and his family. To many, the presidential election was a powerful sign of America’s strength as a democratic nation; many others undoubtedly were perplexed and perhaps bemused by the long, complicated, and expensive theatrics of electoral politics. For those who follow elections and professional consulting closely, the Obama campaign was the best financed, best run, and most sophisticated combination of online technology, social networking and grassroots activism, and blending of new and old media. It was the envy of the campaign world, soon to be copied and emulated by Republicans and Democrats, other aspirants for high office, and campaigns throughout the world.

Just over fourteen months later, on Tuesday evening, January 19, 2010, another jubilant crowd assembled at the Park Plaza Hotel in Boston, cheering the improbable victory of state legislator Scott Brown, who captured the U.S. Senate seat long held by Edward M. Kennedy. Brown won with a clear message of opposition to national health care, his good looks and pickup truck, a lackluster opponent, and the anger and energy of antigovernment activists. It was a campaign ready-made for online activism. Campaign insiders looked at the Brown race and the crushing Republican victories in the 2010 mid-term elections and discovered how much further down the road of social networking and online communication they had come, using techniques that were just beginning to be developed by the Obama presidential campaign.

In June 2014, another improbable victory occurred in a Virginia Republican primary election battle. House majority leader Eric Cantor and his consultants completely misread the challenge coming from little-known economics professor David Brat. Fueled by Tea Party anger and distrust, Brat decisively beat Cantor. Brat supporters used social media and old-fashioned door-to-door hustle to bring out disaffected Republicans. Cantor had the overwhelming financial edge, the experienced political consultants, and name recognition, but none of this could overcome a determined opposition. Too few of Cantor’s supporters came to the polls, and the wrath of the Tea Party sent shivers throughout the Republican establishment.Political campaign strategies and techniques have evolved and transformed. What was new and creative in 2000 was surpassed in 2004; what was exciting and unique in 2008 has been improved upon in 2016. But it isn’t just greater emphasis on social media or data mining technologies that have transformed campaigning. It is also the impact of unregulated funds, “dark money,” that has made campaigning far more expensive, the anger and activism of citizens fed up with government gridlock, and the role played by plutocrats, willing to pour millions of dollars into national and state elections. Over this past decade, a new model of professional political campaigning has been emerging: one that is far less top-down controlled by political consultants, has greater engagement of ordinary citizens, and is fueled by the ease and access of online communication. What has been emerging is the twenty-first century model of campaigning.

Twentieth Century Campaign Model

For most of American history, from the mid-1820s through the first half of the twentieth century, campaigning was dominated by the political parties. The parties recruited candidates, made campaign funds available, assessed public opinion, and mobilized voters for the elections.¹ By the 1960s, however, the political parties had lost their hold on electioneering and individual candidates began to hire their own teams of experts, political consultants and operatives. This became known as the era of the candidate-centered election. Candidates were often on their own: responsible for raising their own campaign funds, hiring their own consultants and campaign team, and running their own race independently of the party. The connection with their political party was sometimes so tenuous that candidates would not even mention their party affiliation in campaign advertisements and literature. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, political consultants routinely began working for individual candidates, and in the last two decades of the twentieth century, they became permanent fixtures in American elections.

A look at a competitive, well-funded U.S. Senate campaign in 1990, for example, would show the extent to which candidates relied on professional assistance. The candidate would hire a full range of political consultants and campaign operatives: a campaign manager, media team, private pollster, researchers, fundraisers, voter identification, targeting and get-out-the-vote specialists, direct mail and telephone operations. In order to pay for the consultants, the polling, phone bank, television advertising, direct mail expenditures, staff and office expenditures, and countless others, the campaign would need to raise approximately $5 million.

This typical campaign, and thousands of others like it, illustrates the twentieth century model of campaigning.

First, political consultants were in a command-and-control mode. They would be the dominant voice in defining the contest, creating strategy, and in maintaining message discipline (or in consultant James Carville’s well-remembered words from the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign, “It’s the economy, stupid!”). Candidates, of course, would have the last word and were ultimately responsible for the conduct and tone of their campaign, but often the decisions were driven by the experience and knowledge of the senior consultants. The campaign manager, a general consultant, the pollster, the media team, perhaps the direct mail specialists, would join the trusted political allies or senior political staff of the candidate to craft the message and plot strategy. Much of what consultants did was based on past campaigns, their own instincts and creativity.

Second, the consultants and strategist would employ a top-down method of communicating. They would gather information from likely voters, be guided by survey research results through polls, focus groups and dial meter sessions, but would not involve individual voters or activists in the critical decisions of the campaign, such as, what the candidate says, the shape and content of the candidate’s television commercials, where the candidate goes, what issues are important and should be emphasized. Consultants were in control, and knew that without their discipline and determination, the inherent chaos of an election could drive them into a ditch.

Third, campaigns relied on television as the chief medium of communication. For many secondary races in major media markets which could not afford television, direct mail became the communication weapon of choice. Campaigns also relied on radio advertising, bill boards, phone banks, and news print to get their message across to likely voters.

Fourth, campaigns had time to craft messages, days and even weeks to put together television advertising, time to absorb an opponent’s attack and then to respond in kind. Campaigns would follow news cycles, which meant the morning drive-time, noon day news, and evening news at 6:00 p.m. and late news coverage at 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. With the advent of all-news television and radio channels and 24/7 news cycles, campaign messaging and communication were compelled to go on all-day and all-night alert. Polling results, which in earlier times took days to analyze and report, became more readily available, and their analyses was aided by advances in software technology.

Fifth, much of the campaign was based on guesswork, instinct, and past experience. Campaigns had polling numbers and cross-tabulations, but could only guess whether a television commercial or direct mail advertisement might be effective. Campaigns relied on past voting data and census figures, and were just beginning to factor in other elements, such as lifestyle choices, intensity of support for issues or candidates, or other matters.

Sixth, fundraising was conducted primarily through big ticket events, where a small number of contributors would “max out,” give the largest amount of money permitted by law. Direct mail was the vehicle of choice for reaching those contributors who gave less money, but it was very expensive to cast about for potential donors. Small-dollar donations, $25 or so, were also received, but it was difficult and expensive to rely on such small givers. Except for special events, it was very hard to raise large amounts of money in short periods of time.

Seventh, except in presidential and other high-profile campaigns, voters were basically spectators. They would be asked primarily to do one thing, show up on election day and cast their ballot. Few voters contributed money, volunteered on campaigns, or interacted with the campaign in any way.

The Online Revolution

The twentieth century model prevailed during the 1960s through the 1990s, and in many campaigns, particularly those less well funded, has extended to the present time. But then came the online revolution.

Since before the turn into this century, political analysts and online communications advocates had been arguing that the Internet, email, and other forms of online communications would transform politics and electioneering. Pioneering candidates and campaigns in America had used the Internet and email since the mid-1990s, and by the presidential race of 2000, these tools became integral parts of the most successful candidate communication activities. By 2000, one could probably sum up the use of online communication as still a work in progress. Remember, this was years before Facebook, YouTube, blogging, smartphones, Twitter, or a whole host of social media tools. By the 2008 presidential election, online communication had truly come into it own as significant campaign tool.²

As seen in Chapter 2, online campaigning has changed dramatically since Bob Dole announced his website address during the 1996 debates. In those early days, campaign websites were static, often merely political bulletin boards giving viewers little more than electronic versions of the campaign’s literature.³ Two candidates and their consultants stood out in the use of this new technology. First, was Jesse Ventura, a third-party candidate for governor of Minnesota in 1998. This former U.S. Navy Seal and professional wrestler improbably won in a three-way race, appealing particularly to young people, many of whom never voted before, attracting them through his fledgling website. The second was the 2000 campaign of Senator John S. McCain III of Arizona for the Republican nomination for president. McCain was able to raise over $2 million in just two days through his campaign website. When that remarkable amount of money, mostly in small donations, poured into the McCain campaign, rival candidates and consultants began to take seriously the potential of online communications.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, online communication and campaigning arrived at a new plateau. By this time, campaigns had learned to create fairly sophisticated websites and they were about to exploit other aspects of online communication. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination through his website. Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, with little money and name recognition, heavily relied on the Internet and online communication to appeal to voters. Online activists were becoming factors as well. For example, there was a strong push by groups formed online to persuade retired U.S. Army general Wesley Clark to enter the race for the Democratic nomination, and, encouraged by this support, Clark declared his candidacy.

However, the best use of online communication during the 2004 presidential primaries came from the campaign of Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, who was running for the Democratic nomination.⁴ While Dean himself was not adept at online communication, his staff, particularly campaign manager Joe Trippi, ventured into new online strategies. The Dean campaign gave us three innovations: First, was interactive communication between supporters and the campaign. Dean became the first presidential candidate to create a blog (called Blog for America), and the first to employ a blogmaster as a paid employee of his campaign. The campaign encouraged supporters to participate, give advice, suggest campaign ideas, and come up with policy options. Even more, Dean promised to take the best ideas and incorporate them into his campaign. This was a revolutionary approach to running a campaign: rather than rely on the traditional top-down, message-disciplined campaign run by professionals, Dean promised to listen to his supporters and act according to their wishes. Yet when actual votes had to be counted, the energetic Dean grassroots-online campaign famously crashed in the Iowa caucus. Other presidential candidates, however, saw the value and promise of online communication, and began creating their own blogs.

Second, the Dean campaign was particularly adept at gathering together supporters and volunteers, reaching them through online communication. The campaign collaborated with Meetup.com, a website that encouraged like-minded persons to come together. This was social networking in its infancy, in the days before Facebook and other sites caught on in the political arena. By July 1, 2003, seven months before the Iowa caucus, the Dean campaign had gathered 49,260 individuals through Meetup.com; by the time of the Iowa caucus, in February 2004, Dean had signed up 187,525 supporters through his website.

The third innovation was online fundraising. While McCain four years earlier had raised a few million dollars online, the Dean campaign raised $41 million, mostly from small-amount donors who gave between $25 and $100 each. In past presidential contests, only relatively few Americans actually contributed money. In the 2000 presidential primaries, for example, just 770,000 individuals, out of a total adult population of 185 million, gave funds. Dean’s innovation was to expand this pool, using the co...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of Tables
• Preface
• 1 The Modern Campaign
• 2 Communicating with Voters: The New Media
• 3 Communicating with Voters: The Old Media
• 4 Campaign Dollars: From Soft Money to Dark Money
• 5 Taking the Pulse of the Electorate
• 6 Voter Identification, Contact, and Mobilization
• 7 Outside Voices
• 8 Campaigning in the Next Decade
• Appendix A: Summary of Findings
• Appendix B: Timeline of Selected Campaign Firsts
• Notes
• Further Reading
• Index