On Monday, Jessica posted her “Ten Twitter Tips for Campaigns in 2010″; to continue the theme, today I’ve linked up an article from the United Kingdom on “How the 2010 Election Will be Won by Blogs and Tweets”, appearing earlier this month in The Guardian:

(more…)

2010 promises to be a good year for conservative campaigns both in North Carolina and across the country. Whether you are running a campaign for town council or a statewide Senate campaign, Twitter can play an important role in helping you win.

I’ve compiled ten tips and observations to help conservative campaigns engage conservative voters in 2010. These important (and perhaps obvious) Twitter tips are based on what I’ve seen campaigns do and not do with their Twitter strategies in the past year.

Take a look, remember that followers are potential voters, and get tweeting!

1. Realize Successful Twitter Accounts Do Not Come Overnight.

Campaigns need to be prepared to invest in this new media tool. Twitter accounts, like all other aspects of your campaign, will require staff time and resources. Start by creating a long term Twitter strategy that focuses on reaching and educating your potential voters. As you continue, remember that successful Twitter accounts are not measured by the amount of followers you have, but the impact your message has on those you are trying to target.

2. Customize Your Twitter Account

Fill in any possible information on the Twitter Profile (name, website, and bio at minimum), including dates for primary or general elections. Create a custom background that corresponds to the branding on your website and Facebook Page or use the background space to list url information for your other social media accounts. There are multiple options for customization, but the point here is to create a Twitter profile that is engaging and informative.

3. Remember You Have a Twitter Account

This seems obvious, but I can’t tell you how many campaigns I have seen start accounts on social networks and then fail to follow through. Twitter should be your second new media priority (after Facebook), but if your campaign hasn’t developed a strategy for using Twitter, don’t launch an account yet. It does you no favors for potential voters to see a campaign Twitter account that hasn’t been updated in months. (Of course, if you are itching to start using Twitter and just can’t seem to come up with a strategy, let’s talk).

4. Know Who Is Tweeting

For most organizations, parties, groups, and online grassroots movements, I recommend keeping personal and business accounts completely separate. However, for campaigns it’s effective for candidates to show a personal side. The trick here is to make sure it’s clear who is tweeting. If campaign staff will tweet sometimes and the candidate others, create an easy way for followers to distinguish the tweets.

5. Hashtags. Use them.

Hashtags are my favorite part of Twitter because they allow you to reach new people and categorize your tweets. I am continually amazed that there are candidates running for any office, especially Congress or Senate, who are still not using hashtags. Look around and find out which hashtags your potential followers are using and use them constantly. You could also create your own hashtag and feed it to your campaign website (warning: don’t forget that anyone can tweet anything with any hashtag). Either way, encourage your supporters to retweet or tweet about you using the hashtags your campaign is using.

6. Stop Expecting People to Come to You.

Many savvy political tweeters will seek out your Twitter account, but many, many more potential supporters will not. The best way to increase your base is to follow the people you hope will follow you. My tip for finding your followers is to pick influential tweeters in your district and follow the tweeters who are following them. You might even ask those same influential tweeters to recommend people for you to follow.

7. See Follower, Think Voter

When you see the word follower, think “potential voter” and engage tweeters in every way possible. For example, thank followers for retweeting important links and encourage them to do so in the future. Consider encouraging followers to ask questions and use the Twitter account to respond to those questions. However you go about engaging your followers, remember that followers are potential voters and you need them come Election Day.

8. Use Twitter Lists

Engage and recognize your supporters by grouping them in specific Twitter lists. Consider sending the people on these lists your press releases and links to your latest blogs first. It’s likely they will appreciate the recognition and start spreading your content. Twitter lists are an easy and quick way to see what your supporters are tweeting about.

9. Know What People Are Tweeting About Your Campaign

Don’t rely on Google alerts and the Twitter @ reply function (which is unreliable at best) for Twitter reputation management. It’s important to take time to use the Twitter search function to search for your name, district, your opponent’s name, and other relevant keywords. Follow the people who are supporting you and address any questions that have been raised by other Tweeters.

10. Don’t Stop Tweeting Once You Win

Change your account name from @nameforcongress to @RepName and tweet more than ever. You will be glad you did when the next election cycle rolls around.

(This blog is also posted at MajorityConnections.com.)

Here are a few thoughts on the election results — and some lessons for activists, potential candidates, politics junkies and insiders:

1. It’s still the economy, stupid. The results in New Jersey, Virginia, and elsewhere prove that voters — above everything else — still vote their wallets and pocketbooks. Cultural issues were far less important (see Virginia), and Independents don’t put a lot of stock in personal attacks (Virginia and New Jersey) or endorsements (Virginia, New Jersey, and upstate New York). Exit polls revealed that 20 percent of New Jersey voters and 37 percent of Virginia voters (according to one poll) said the economy and jobs were the number one factor in whom they voted for. My guess: an overwhelming majority would rate the economy and jobs as one of their top three issues. Campaigns that focus on lowering taxes, cutting spending, improving economic and business conditions, and creating jobs will be the winning campaigns of 2010.
2. Incumbents beware. There was a general “Throw the bums out!” atmosphere during this year’s election (especially in New Jersey). If the economy remains on life support through 2010, that feeling will be even more palpable next November, to the benefit of challengers nationwide. With big majorities in the Senate, House, governor’s mansions and state houses across the country, the Democrats should be afraid. Very afraid. I would add that “Blue Dog Democrats” should also be afraid. Creigh Deeds was trying to become the third Blue Dog in a row to win the governor’s race in the “purple” state of Virginia. He lost by 18 points. Methinks his landslide loss will terrify moderate Democrats weighing the decision to vote for Pelosicare this month.
3. Money can’t buy you love. What can $100 million buy you? A 5-point victory in the New York City mayor’s race. How about $130 million? A couple of statewide victories in New Jersey in 2000 and 2005…and then a swift boot out the door in 2009. Bloomberg and Corzine proved that money can’t buy you votes (at least not enough for comfortable victories). Christie won in New Jersey despite being outspent by a 3-1 margin. Bloomberg was well ahead in the polls, running against a relative unknown, and outspent his opponent by gazillions of dollars. He still only won by 5. It’s still the mother’s milk of politics, but money sure isn’t everything anymore.
4. Online advocacy really does work. If money’s influence is diminishing — at least in comparison with other factors — which tools are gaining in influence? Answer: the Internet. There’s a nice write-up on Bob McDonnell’s online advocacy effort — with further links and case studies on e-advocacy — at epolitics.com.
5. What a mess in NY-23. Finally, I can’t ignore the results of the special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District. Here are my thoughts:

• We have to acknowledge Obama’s brilliant strategy of picking off Republicans in blue states and battleground districts. How many does this make so far? What’s next, Chris Christie for Ambassador? Let’s hope not!
• “A house divided…” The local GOP leaders in upstate New York completely botched the whole process.  This is why the Republican Party should hold primaries. Republican leaders didn’t make it any better after the fact, trading endorsements and jabs that were more about 2012 than NY-23.
• Liberal “Republicans” posing as moderates cannot win. Period. End of story. I believe the GOP can still be a “Big Tent Party,” but that does not mean the tent should include candidates who support gay marriage, abortion rights, more government spending, and higher taxes. There’s already a party for candidates with those views. I’m willing to accept social moderates (rather, social libertarians), but I’m done with big government, big spending LIBERAL Republicans. And I think the Tea Party movement and the American people are done with them too.
• The real story of this race should be that a Conservative Party candidate captured 45 percent of the vote (the highest ever for the party). If Doug Hoffman had had an “R” beside his name, he clearly would have won. And let me also point out that Hoffman doesn’t exactly set the world on fire. I respect anyone willing to stick his neck out in a race like this — and I certainly agree with Hoffman’s politics — but passion, organization, and a grasp for local issues matter too.
• Finally, I hope the Democrats enjoy holding that seat for the next 12 months, because it’s turning red again in 2010.

Agree? Disagree? I’d love to hear your take-aways from Election Day 2009…

Joe Garecht wrote a fantastic blog entry titled “The 3 Keys to Winning Any Local Election” on his Local Victory website.  If you’re thinking about running for local office — from school board to city council to mayor — read this before you do anything else:

(more…)

Colin Delany wrapped up his series, How Candidates Can Use the Internet to Win in 2010, on his fantastic website, e.politics.  (If you missed the first two posts in the series, you can catch up here and here.) In this third and final installment, Colin writes about online voter outreach and the tools of the trade (social networking platforms, blogs, online video, Internet advertising, and turning volunteers loose on behalf of the campaign).

(more…)

Last week I re-posted a blog entry from Colin Delany’s blog, e.politics, on“How Candidates Can Use the Internet to Win 2010″. Today, in Part Two of his article, Delany covers the basic tools  needed for political campaign Internet strategies, from the campaign website to CRM to budgeting and staffing:

(more…)

While I don’t share Colin Delany’s political views, his blog, e.politics, is a must-read for those who work (or play) at the intersection of politics and the Internet. Colin’s articles always deliver a perfect mix of Online Politicking 101 and stand-up comedy. His latest blog entry, “How Candidates Can Use the Internet to Win 2010 (Part One)”, is no different:

(more…)

Tyler Harber wrote a helpful article in Politics Magazine last week called “All Staff, No Brains” discussing the perils of entrusting a campaign staff with overall campaign strategy. A good staff is important — no, essential. But there are dangers in relying on the staff to shape the campaign’s overarching approach, direction, message, and planning:

(more…)

• 

I read an interesting column today by Michael Medved called “A Winning Formula for the GOP”. He argues for a “more conservative message delivered by a more moderate voice.” In the summer of Obamacare, Joe Wilson, and the Tea Party movement, is Michael Medved’s strategy a winning one or a formula for Republican retreat? You be the judge:

President Obama’s recent decline in the polls represents a comeback opportunity for Republicans, but they will squander that chance if they follow either of the two most frequently promoted strategies for party revival. The GOP’s remaining moderates want a shift to the center, while the right wing demands uncompromising, confrontational, us-vs.-them rhetoric. Both road maps will lead to political dead ends for a struggling party that actually needs a new combination of conservative substance and moderate tone.

Most obviously, there’s no reason for struggling Republicans to abandon their conservative brand in a nation that prefers the conservative label to the liberal designation in every corner of the country. A recent Gallup Poll shows more people in all 50 states who identify as conservatives than as liberals. Only in Massachusetts, Hawaii and Vermont is the contest even close. In the 2008 election, even though Barack Obama won the popular vote by seven percentage points, exit polling showed a landslide victory of 12 percentage points for self-identified conservatives over liberals.

There’s no evidence, in other words, that it would help the GOP to blur the conservative label, as suggested by centrist Republican leaders (including Sen. Arlen Specter — before he switched to the Democrats). In fact, conservatism remains vastly more popular than Republicanism. That same Gallup Poll revealed significant advantages for Democrats in party preference in 30 states and for Republicans in only four. In crucial battleground states such as Ohio, Indiana and North Carolina, those who identify themselves as conservatives outnumber liberals by 20 percentage points. Yet when identifying themselves by party in those states, Democrats top Republicans by at least 10 percentage points. To renew the party, Republicans need to identify themselves more clearly with conservative values, not less so.

Political warfare

This recognition leads to the other commonly expressed (and misguided) formula for reviving the Republican Party: a new emphasis on hyperpartisan, take-no-prisoners political warfare against the Obama regime. According to nearly all my talk radio colleagues, this sort of full-throated denunciation of the president’s alleged “march to socialism” mobilizes the nation’s permanent conservative majority.

Unfortunately, that majority doesn’t exist — not even in the most reliably red states. Nowhere (not even in Alabama or Utah) do self-styled “conservatives” number more than 50%, which means that even with solid right-wing support, the GOP still needs some moderate backing to win. Yes, conservatives greatly outnumber liberals, but the number of self-described “moderates” dwarfs both the other groups. Success among this “mushy middle” (44% of the electorate, according to exit polls) turned the election to Obama, not conservative disillusionment with John McCain. Even if the GOP nominee had won every single conservative vote cast for the victorious George W. Bush in 2004, he still would have lost the election decisively because Obama crushed him among moderates by 21 percentage points.

On the surface, this centrist landslide for the Democrats makes no sense, since Obama compiled a voting record as the most liberal U.S. senator, while McCain earned a reputation as an independent-minded maverick. Why, then, did moderate voters prefer Obama in such overwhelming numbers?

The answer involves his moderate tone, not the ideological substance of his program. As the clear front-runner from the time he locked up the nomination, Obama could emphasize gauzy themes of “hope” and “change” and avoid resorting to angry rhetoric. Republicans, on the other hand, played catch-up throughout the campaign, adopting a style that struck the public (according to surveys) as more negative than their Democratic opponents. Attempts to raise the issue of Obama’s one-time friendship with radical Bill Ayers, or Joe the Plumber’s warnings of socialism, only served to make the GOP ticket look immoderate, despite the fact that its issues positions were, if anything, more mainstream and less ideological than the Democratic platform.

History and recent polling send clear messages regarding the right strategy for rebuilding the GOP. Republicans don’t need less conservatism, and won’t benefit from a more confrontational style. They actually need more conservatism, and a less confrontational style.

They must renew the same combination that worked for Republican winners for some 30 years. Ronald Reagan never abandoned conservative positions, but his genial approach to political combat won him the moderate voters he needed for two landslide victories. Similarly, the George W. Bush slogan “compassionate conservatism” (much derided on the right) allowed him to contest moderate votes with Al Gore and John Kerry and to win two hard-fought victories.

Courting the moderates

The point to remember about those citizens in the political middle who decide every national election is that they’re the least philosophically committed, issues-oriented voters in the electorate. Interviews and conversation make it obvious that many citizens describe themselves as “moderate” because they feel uncertain of their place on the political spectrum, less engaged with the roiling controversies of the day. Moderates famously respond to personalities or atmospherics (”hope and change” or “compassionate conservatism”) more than they react to nine-point plans or detailed position papers. They also dislike strident, the other-guy-is-Hitler rhetoric because such appeals seem like a rebuke to their own uncertainty.

Republicans can’t win without rallying the plurality of Americans who prefer conservatism to liberalism, but they also can’t triumph (anywhere) with that group alone. Like Democrats, the GOP needs moderate votes for victory, and the only way to get them without sacrificing principle or core conservative voters involves deploying the same combination that has worked before: maintaining clearly conservative positions, but with those values presented in a manner that’s optimistic, constructive, reasonable and, yes, moderate.

Michael Medved is a nationally syndicated talk radio host and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors. He’s the author of the upcoming book The 5 Big Lies About American Business.

I’m reading an interesting book called Get Out the Vote by Donald P. Green and Alan S. Gerber. The book dissects every popular “GOTV” activity known to man, and — based on numerous experiments, field tests, and statistical analysis — rates the effectiveness of each tactic.

The chapter on phone banks is particularly interesting.

Care to make a guess as to how many calls it takes to motivate one additional voter to go to the polls from volunteers callers, professional phone banks workers, or (dum, dum, dum!…) robo calls?

I’m going to keep you in suspense until the end of this post. First, take a look at an interesting analysis of live polling versus robo call polling. (Keep in mind that this article is debating the merits of polling by phone, not turning out voters. I’ll come back to the “live versus robo” GOTV discussion, as promised, at the end of this post.)

(more…)

•