Every year, clients ask us to order hundreds and even thousands of yard signs.

Despite rising costs of up to $7 per sign, campaigns continue to double down on them. Controversy erupts when candidates’ signs suddenly vanish in the dead of night and occasionally someone is even arrested for stealing campaigns signs.

It’s the favorite tactic of many grassroots activists yet is thoroughly hated by most political professionals.

Who’s right?

While lawn signs are widely used in modern elections, their effectiveness has not been as widely studied as other forms of campaigning, such as door-to-door canvassing, direct mail, and telephone calls.

A 2016 academic study led by the now famous political scientist Donald Green of Columbia University studied four campaigns with randomized experiments and testing.

The findings included:

• After pooling the results of the four experiments and examining their averages, it appears that lawn signs raise vote shares, on average, by slightly more than 1 percentage point.
• Based on pooled results, lawn signs are “on par with other low-tech campaign tactics …  that generate effects that tend to be small in magnitude.”
• Signs, in some scenarios, do not appear to be as effective when they make reference to a specific political party or ideology.

While lawn signs appear to have a modest effect on voting outcomes, they could, theoretically, provide an edge in certain tight elections.

One place where signs can provide an edge is in very small races with low budgets, where candidates are all but unknown to the public. Cindy Kam, a professor at Vanderbilt University, co-authored a study in 2011 in which yard signs for a fictitious county council candidate — “Ben Griffin” — were planted in lawns on well-trafficked streets.

A survey was taken a few days later asking voters to list their choices for the county’s at-large council seats. Five real candidates were listed along with the fictitious Ben Griffin and another made-up name. Incredibly, nearly a quarter of respondents listed the fictional Ben Griffin among their top three picks. Kam concludes that in races where little information is available, “having some sense of name recognition, having seen a name, having seen multiple signs that convey a sense of viability [and] electability can be useful.”

While not an experiment, in 2018 Democratic US Senate candidate Doug Jones, running in deep-red Alabama, placed 15,000 yard signs as a way to give voters “permission” to vote for him, by placing signs in the homes of prominent Republicans who couldn’t stomach the idea of Ray Moore.

What’s key is how they distributed them.

Anybody who wanted one first had to give their name, address, telephone number, and email address. The Jones supporter could pick one up from a neighbor, too, but only if they could also supply contact information. In my mind, this was the yard signs’ most important contribution, with the data becoming a resource for the campaign, helping it organize and then mobilize its dedicated supporters and volunteers.

Which supports what operatives have always said, which is that IF yard signs are distributed they should be used to collect volunteer support or information.

So there you have it – signs (sadly) have a place in modern campaigning. Give me a call at 206-423-0120 and let’s chat about your campaign. I won’t even give you grief for ordering yard signs.

As Elon soft launches his new puppet (I mean announces the new CEO of Twitter), we thought we’d do a refresher on social media usage for campaigns. When the head of a major platform is ousted in a poll he himself put his job on the line for, how are the rest of us expected to navigate it?

This is just another reminder that elections DO matter. Don’t let yourself get played on social media. Presumably, you don’t have billions of dollars to fall back on, so you’ve got to get it right the first time.

So, here’s our guides to Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Social media is an ever changing landscape. To be “good” at it, you need to be flexible and creative. But it also shouldn’t be the main focus of your campaign. Think of social media as a more fun way to encourage your base.

We hope you find the guides helpful and if you want to talk more about how best to communicate online (or offline), give us a shout.

Welcome to a new semi-regular series called Tech 2 Try. It seems like every time you turn around there’s a new tool changing the campaign game. Every so often, we’re going to use our platform to highlight some of our favorites and our clients’ favorites. If you try any tech we recommend, let us know!

And, just to be clear, these are products we’ve seen and were impressed with – there’s been no “promotional considerations” here.

Pingdex is an easy-to-use, yet powerful app built for the busy principal to better coordinate calls and schedules with staff. Pingdex’s dashboard and mobile app are integrated directly with NGP, allowing data to flow freely into the app and back into NGP after calls are completed. Pingdex allows candidates and campaign staff to scale up their call time programs in an organized way, and send pre-recorded voicemails and follow-up messages quickly after calls. Pingdex has been great for our candidates who are always on the go- whether that’s running for office as a working mom or candidates in rural districts who drive long distances – or both!

Clipbook is a fast-growing tech startup that provides automated press clips and media intelligence for campaigns, nonprofits, and organizations that we use ourselves. Their daily reports have been so helpful for our team. It has allowed us to stay up to date on any news from our clients across the country.  Whether tracking principal mentions, key issues, or industry trends, they work closely with each of their clients to deliver highly customized, dynamic, and actionable press reports, drawing from over 100,000 media sources, to achieve organizational goals. Check out their website or grab time with a team member to learn more!

VODIUM is the world’s only research-backed virtual teleprompter app chosen by hybrid professionals. The intuitive tech-powered solution is built for communication that counts, enabling you to drive the results you want to see in every type of virtual setting. The company was founded at the beginning of the pandemic by a diverse, millennial, majority-women team with extensive experience in webinar, TV & video production to improve communication in the hybrid world.

It can be overwhelming to know what tech is right for your race. We’re here to help you navigate. Drop us an email and let’s talk about how we can work together.

See you on the next Tech 2 Try!

We know you get a lot of emails, text messages, Signals and Zooms. We are all busy, and we want to respect that without cluttering your inbox with nonsense.

But these last few weeks we’ve been to the two major political award conferences, one sponsored by our trade organization, the American Association of Political Consultants, and the other sponsored by Campaigns and Elections Magazine.

And we came back with some awards that we wanted to share because, well, we’re proud of the work we do and how effective it is at getting the message out and winning elections.

Without further adieu, here’s what we won:

Campaign and Election Magazine’s Reed Awards:

Best use of targeting for radio or streaming ad
State Rep. Alicia Rule (WA) – Christian radio

Best mail piece to support a vote-by-mail program
Bexar County (Texas) Democrats – Choice Contrast

American Association of Political Consultant’s Pollie Awards:

Absentee Vote / Early Vote / Vote By Mail
New Jersey Education Association – The ballots are coming!

Independent Expenditure Campaign for Downballot Statewide
Montana Federation of Public Employees on behalf of Justice Ingrid Gustafson – Justice Gustafson protects our freedoms

And, so we’re not just talking about ourselves, here’s some links to some interesting emails you might have missed – Candace discussing Facebook, Dean talking about data about AANHPI voters or Jess with a direct mail case study.

Have a project you need a partner on? Email, text, Signal and let’s talk.

Much has been made (and rightfully so) about how the GOP has increasingly captured a larger share of Latino voters in recent elections, putting areas like the Rio Grande Valley into play for the first time in generations.

However, we haven’t seen much analysis of Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders (AANHPI) voters. One of the fastest growing demographics, AANHPI population nearly doubled between 2000 and 2020 and is projected to more than double again by 2060.

In the last two elections – 2020 and 2022 – AANHPI voters have moved toward the right, according to both election returns and exit polling. While, like Latinos, Democrats are still winning these voters, the margins are shrinking.

The high water mark came in 2016, when AANHPI voters backed Hillary Clinton with a 79% share. That number shrank to 68% in 2020 and 64% in 2022 – a very dangerous trend.

In Texas, API voters backed Republican Governor Greg Abbott with 52% of the vote in 2022. In New York City, precincts that were majority AANHPI shifted 23% toward the Republican nominee between the 2018 and 2022 elections. New York City is particularly interesting because AANHPI voters make up 14% of the population and are the fastest growing demographic group.

While more research has to be done for this shift, community leaders have pointed out to increased campaigning in the AANHPI communities by Republicans (and a noticeable lack by Democrats), an uptick in anti-Asian violence and a corresponding tough-on-crime message from the GOP, as well as issues around education, particularly in New York where an affirmative action proposal had some people worry it would reduce seats at the elite public high schools for White and AANHPI students in order to admit more Black and Latino students.

Like Latinos, Asian Americans are politically diverse. Nationally, the most heavily Democratic Groups include those of Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi descent, while the least Democratic group is Vietnamese Americans, followed by Korean, Cambodian and Filipino Americans. Of course, regional and generational variations in these groups make it essential to do your own research about your electorate.

Nearly half of the AANHPI population lives in the west, with about a third of the total US AANHPI population residing in California.

The states with the largest AANHPI concentrations are:

Hawaii, 54%
California, 17%
Washington, 11%
New Jersey, 10%
Nevada, 10%
New York, 9%
Alaska, 9%
Virginia, 8%
Massachusetts, 8%
Maryland, 7%

The broader shift among AANHPI voters coincides with the well-documented shift of lower income, blue collar voters toward the GOP. As the parties increasingly separate on income lines, each party will begin to push policies that reflect the new party bases – Democrats increasingly becoming bolder on, for example, guns, and Republicans less interested in cutting Social Security and Medicare.

What can we do about it?

For a Democratic campaign, it’s essential that we immediately increase our outreach and communication to these key groups of voters. Communications must be culturally competent and include in-language messages and imagery that appeal to AANHPI voters. And, for the love of god, don’t use google translate!

It’s essential to know that while 72% of AANHPI residents are proficient in English, only about a third of the AANHPI population speak only English in their homes. Therefore, in-language communications are essential.

In states and districts with concentrations of AANHPI voters, we strongly encourage working with your pollster to oversample AANHPI voters to ensure that you have a representative sample and can tailor communication programs to these key groups. In many cases, in-language callers or focus groups may be necessary to reach your target audience.

Here at CN4, we cut our teeth helping elect Gary Locke, the first Chinese-American Governor in America (later Obama’s Commerce Secretary and Ambassador to China). We have extensive experience with in-language communications, having reached voters in 16 different languages via direct mail, television, radio, streaming, digital display and video, newspaper and paid phones.

Give us a call at 206-423-0120, we’d love to discuss your program!

Facebook has gone through many iterations in its lifetime–from its insular origins as a college student site to the Metaverse. Despite its various changes, it has remained one of the most dominant websites globally.

As times change, so do demographics. Since Facebook is generally more representative of the U.S. population as a whole, changes observed on the site can shed light into how people are gathering, interpreting, and sharing information. According to Pew Research, approximately 70% of U.S. adults are on Facebook, whereas 40% are on Instagram, 25% on Snapchat, 23% on Twitter, and 21% are on TikTok.

At CN4 Partners, we strive to keep up with the ever expanding landscape of the digital world. Social media is an increasingly integral campaign tool. If used well and depending on your goals, it can greatly elevate your campaign.

Younger people are much more active than assumed.
Contrary to popular belief, Baby Boomers, the generation of approximately 56 to 76 year olds, are not the most active users on Facebook. The platform has seen an uptick in Millennial users, the generation approximately of 25 to 42 year olds, which now makes them the most dominant generation on the site. Even as they’re active on other sites like Instagram and Twitter, Facebook is still their number one used platform.

Gen Z or “Zoomers,” people ages 12 to 25 approximately, are less thrilled about Facebook compared to all generations. In 2022, 35% of teens in the US were on Facebook, a decline from 71% in 2014-15. A recent survey conducted also revealed 25% of the Zoomers interviewed said they want to decrease their use of Facebook in 2023, and seven percent said they will completely leave the site. Gen Z’s departure won’t kneel the internet giant, but it does shed light on how to best reach younger people. Zoomers are using other Meta products like Instagram, and are loving Snapchat and TikTok.

Gen X, people ages 43 to 58, are already a relatively small generation in the US, but 90 percent of them that use social media are on Facebook. Social media users from this generation are more likely than others to stick to what they know and not use newer platforms. Less than half Gen X social media users are on Instagram, and even less on Twitter and Snapchat.

Gender divide
Getting concrete numbers on gender is hard. More and more internet users in general are identifying as non-binary, but Facebook has not kept much data on these users. For the purpose of our report, we’re working with the binary categorization of gender.

Women in the US overrepresent men on Facebook, 54.3 to 47.7, though there has been a slight decline in active women users; in 2018, 56% of active users identified as women, whereas 44% of active users identified as men. Within some age ranges and groups, men may overrepresent women; for instance, in a recent survey asking about social media preference, men 25-35 years old in the US reported Facebook as their favorite platform, while women in that age group reported Instagram as their favorite. This presents a unique opportunity to target Millennial men, and considering the integration of Instagram on Facebook, women too.

Level of income can correlate with what social media platform is used
Many have noticed a correlation between income and voting turnout; the higher the income, the more likely they are to vote. Or more importantly, the higher the income, the less barriers to voting occur.

Facebook started as a college site, and in a way it has retained that spirit. Reportedly, 73% of college-educated US-based Internet users, and 70% of people earning more than $75k a year, are on Facebook regularly. Probably due to its ubiquitous presence on the internet, members from other socioeconomic demographic areas are also represented at around 70%. On other social media sites, there’s more divergence between socioeconomic status and active users.

For instance, 47% of people making more than $75K a year are on Instagram, compared to 39% of people making $50K-$74,999. The divide and percentage of users in different demographics is even starker with Twitter. 34% of $75K yearly wage earners are on Twitter, whereas 22% of $50K-$74,999 yearly wage earners are on the site.

Everyone’s on Facebook–you should be too, then.
Without a doubt, Facebook is still the main star of the internet. Despite the proliferation of other social media platforms gaining popularity and its decline in active users, Facebook has remained powerful. Its adaptability to the changing internet and media landscape has extended its life.

If your campaign is not on Facebook, you’re missing out on reaching voters where they are. There’s an even split of Democrats and Republicans on Facebook, meaning multiple opportunities to sway voters. Curious about how to integrate Facebook into your campaign? Reach out to us.

This week, I sat down with Justin Matheson, the Northwest Director of Axiom Strategies, a GOP consulting firm. Justin has worked in politics for nearly 25 years and has worked on more than 200 campaigns.

Justin has been a mainstay in Northwest politics since 2011. He has also worked on numerous Northwest public affairs campaigns for technology, and energy and agricultural organizations and companies. Previously, Justin managed the Republican candidate in the 2016 Washington governor’s race as well as numerous legislative targets and initiatives throughout the Northwest and Alaska.

Dean Nielsen: What are the biggest differences between Democratic campaigns and Republican ones? Where does each side have the edge?

Justin Matheson: When I started doing races in Washington nearly 15 years ago, I felt like we had the edge on field operations. The majority of Republican campaigns put an emphasis on field programs, and for the most part, I thought we could compete with Democratic support of unions putting hundreds on the ground as volunteers. Since 2013, during the LD 26 special election, it was hard to find Democratic field operatives. However, come 2018, everything changed in LD 26. Democratic field operatives crushed us in the Bremerton area of the district. We were seeing now heavy investments in-field from Democrat campaigns — this edge has changed.

Resources are the biggest edge that Democrats have now; more funding and better retainment of experienced staff year after year. The business community, while they had always been a strong supporter of Republican campaigns, are now coalescing on both sides, skewing campaign money and resources heavily towards Democrats.

DN: You began your political career in California before relocating to Washington state. What’s the difference between California campaigns and the ones you see in the Northwest?

JM: When I started running races in California many moons ago, we were much like the trends we are seeing in Washington today — our cities went from light blue to dark blue. In 1996 and 1998, I was running competitive million-plus-dollar legislative targets deep in Los Angeles County. With changing demographics and the inability of the Republicans to make advances on Latinx communities, these once-competitive regions are all locked up under Democratic control. One of the biggest challenges was closed Republican primaries in California. More and more, the Republican candidates that fit the district better couldn’t get out of the primary because they weren’t conservative enough. The top-two primary system in Washington was a breath of fresh air because we could appeal to the moderates in the primary for purple districts and elect the best candidates. Former moderate Republican senators like Andy Hill, Joe Fain and Steve Litzow would have never survived a California primary.

DN: Your work with Republican campaigns has largely been in states that were blue early in your career and have become more liberal over time. What’s the path forward for the Republicans on the West Coast?

JM: This is easy, and I preach it all the time — we need to stop getting involved in national divisive issues that divide us and start understanding dark blue cities. Republicans don’t have to win Seattle to be successful, but we need to have a presence there with an understanding of the local issues that our urban voters care about. We cannot win by only defending our territory. If a statewide Republican candidate doesn’t have a Seattle presence early, I’ll write them off immediately. I’ll admit, I’ve run campaigns blaming Seattle for everything… but it doesn’t work anymore. We need to embrace Seattle and help them succeed, because if our cities succeed, our state succeeds.

DN: Democratic operatives generally believe that the Republican messages — lower taxes, smaller government, safety and security — are much easier to communicate than Democratic messages. Do you believe this to be true?

JM: I do think they are easier to communicate, but I think Democratic campaigns have blended them into their messaging very effectively. While lower taxes and safety have always been Republican staples, we saw in our polling Democrats taking control over those issues. Their success is largely because they have the funding to control the narrative. Plus, the national Republican image took a dive, and swing voters were not hearing our messages — regardless of the communications.

DN: We are about the same age. One of the big changes in campaigning during our career has been technological advances and the rise of spending on digital vs. more traditional advertising such as direct mail and television. How do voter communication and campaigns continue to evolve?

JM: I remember my first big campaign when everyone on the staff shared the tower computer, and we all took turns checking our AOL accounts. When we ordered data, it came on floppy disks, and you’d have to build out your database in programs like Microsoft Access. Campaign managers today don’t understand that we printed mailers in the offices, had volunteers stuffing hundreds of thousands of mailers, and the carrier sorted it and dropped it to the post office themselves.

A few years back, I told a young staffer that I was going to be replaced by a computer geek in the backroom running algorithms. While we saw this big expansion into digital trends, we also saw it start to implode. Big data and microtargeting are only good if you can find the means to deliver the message effectively. And our exit polling is showing that digital isn’t being consumed as much as we originally thought. Tried-and-tested techniques — from mail, doors and TV — are still resonating the message. Now, we are seeing OTT and texting as the biggest growing trends, but my most successful campaigns are still always built around a mail program first.

DN: What are going to be the new battlegrounds, both demographically and geographically, nationally and in the Northwest?

JM: While I hope to say King County will be a battleground in a post-Trump era, I’m feeling that here in Washington, we’ll still be waging war in the more rural environments. Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish and Pierce will contain all the major targets, but if we aren’t paying attention, Central Washington — Yakima and the Tri-Cities — might start growing on the target lists. I am seeing some good trends on the Olympic Peninsula; more the issue there has been the right candidate recruitment.

Nationally, Washington state is still on the congressional target list with the 8th and 3rd. If the Republicans can pull away from a Joe Kent option, those districts could be won back. Other states like Nevada and Montana (which you and I both do races in) will be huge targets because of the US Senate races.

DN: In 2022, Democrats ran heavily on abortion after the Supreme Court ruling, and it worked. What’s a counter to this from the Republican side for 2024?

JM: Depends on if Trump is on the ballot or not. The economy isn’t working — inflation is killing us. Affordability and the ability to own a home is becoming a distant dream. Whoever can convey these messages most affectively will be successful. Crime hasn’t gotten better. I think what the Republicans need to do is again be a party of vision and solutions, not a “no” party. If we can articulate on how we fix these issues and have the resources to properly get these messages to the right voters without being washed out by Trump, we’ll have success.

DN: There’s a famous line that says that Democratic voters fall in love, and Republican voters fall in line. That seems to have shifted lately. How has the passion of the conservative grassroots and grassroots-fed candidates shifted politics for you?

JM: The pendulum swings both ways. When the far-left movement started to rise, we gained a lot of far-right grassroots candidates. The passion became a cultural war. Although the enthusiasm was great to see, we must break away from conspiracy theories. We find ourselves focusing on candidate quality and trying to get the base equally excited about moderate candidates and the foreign concept of winning.

I’d also like to add — I’m also seeing this passion in people entering in our business. When I was young in the campaign business, I had just as many friends in the Democratic aisle as the Republican. Like when I played rugby in college, we’d fight it out, and go have a beer later. I don’t see that at all anymore. Most consultants and managers are very partisan and have no relationships on the other side. I miss this and appreciate having a beer with you, Dean.

DN: And finally, who will be the Republican nominee in 2024? What are Republican primary voters looking for?

JM: It’s time to move away from Trump. While races in my coverage states like Montana, Idaho and Alaska were strong because of a motivated base in Trump world, we lost major ground we’ve achieved in Washington. I’d like to see some new blood and some national conservative figures like a DeSantis or Youngkin with experience of solving real problems. Not someone that only has to fix the problems they create. My wish is to find nominees that get away from being polarizing figures, but instead bring both sides together to get something done.

Thank you, Justin for your time and insights.

Whenever we embark on a new cycle, we are given a fresh start; a new chance to talk to voters and make meaningful change. With that comes the inevitable reinventions of the wheel. New tech, tactics, and messages are considered and tested. But, this email isn’t about that.

Mail is the oldest form of paid political communications. Thus, campaigns either take it for granted or consider it antiquated. We hear it all the time – does anyone read this stuff? Does it still move voters? Here are the results of a study that we conducted with one of our partners that proved the effectiveness of our creative product.

Let’s talk about WA LD30…

In 2016, we led the Independent Expenditure campaign in WA LD30 targeting incumbent State Rep. Linda Kochmar (R).

As part of the effort, we engaged in a number of tests designed to measure the effects of the Direct Mail communication.

Washington state is one of 8 states with contiguous state house and senate districts, meaning that each voter can vote for the same one Senator and two members of the House of Representatives. This makes testing very interesting and measurable.

This mail was done at a time when none of the four campaigns were spending any media money and there was no Independent Expenditure campaign against Rep. Hickel, the other Republican State Rep. running for reelection in LD30.

This is the rare opportunity to see exactly how effective we are at our jobs…

Our in-cycle polling, conducted by Myers Research before and after mail was sent, showed that our Direct Mail program had a net -12 negative effect on Kochmar. GOP Rep. Hickel, who had the exact same voting record in the same district, did not see any measurable effect in the same period, including no increase in negative feelings.

But the only poll that matters is Election Day. By Election Day, Kochmar underperformed fellow incumbent Teri Hickel by over 3 points and lost her seat.

Colorado Accountability Project

In 2016, we ran a similar program in Colorado with two rounds of testing. After our first round of Direct Mail, our poll showed that our targets moved an average of 8% across three districts; after our second round of direct mail, we moved our targets an average of 9%.

Democratic candidates won all three districts.

All that to say, direct mail is still one of the most effective ways to spend your money. It has 100% penetration, works as both a persuasion and a mobilization tool, and is useful for communicating with any and all demographics. In fact, the group who loves mail the most? Millennials. According to polling, Millennials use mail as the jumping off point for their own candidate research.

CN4 has a mission to maximize the effectiveness and reach of mail. From the targeting to the messaging, we test our work and hold ourselves to the highest standards. We even embrace new programs like Informed Delivery. We want to help you get the most from your mail program. Reach out today and see how CN4 can help you succeed at every level.

The political world was shocked Tuesday night with news that hasn’t happened in Chicago in four decades- the sitting mayor was knocked out of the race.

This hasn’t happened since Harold Washington beat then-mayor Jane Byrne in the February 1983 Democratic primary. We decided to take a deeper dive and see where Paul Vallas won – and the path for Vallas and Brandon Johnson in the run-off.

Here’s some of our quick takes on the race:

• Former Chicago Schools CEO Paul Vallas (33.7%) emerges with the strongest base, indeed virtually monolithic in many precincts concentrated in the outer AND whiter and Asian wards, while putting in a stronger than expected performance in Hispanic wards. His challenge will be expanding this support while NOT being straight-jacketed as a Republican. Four years ago, Vallas came in 9^th out of 14 candidates with 5% of the vote; he certainly learned the lessons from that race.
• Cook County Commissioner Brandon Johnson (20.3%) takes the key 2nd spot, however with only a minimal (albeit critical) geographic base (North & near-Northwest side) due to competition from Vallas and Lightfoot, along with other hopefuls. Moving forward, his prospects of surmounting Vallas’s current lead depend on consolidating the lion’s share of the Primary losers PLUS mobilizing others who did not cast ballots in February. Johnson’s campaign was fueled by a million-dollar cash infusion from the American Federation of Teachers.
• Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s (17.0%) incumbency was less than helpful, even in her own South and West side base as demonstrated by her winning a majority in a (literal) handful of precincts; which way her “last hurrah” supporters break in the April runoff showdown between Vallas and Johnson is anyone’s guess. Lightfoot spent much of the campaign pushing back on Garcia and attempting to set up a general election between her and Vallas. Interestingly enough, Lightfoot’s 17.0% of the vote in 2023 is only slightly below her vote of 17.5% in 2019 when she was the leading vote getter; the major difference was the presence of a larger number of credible candidates that year.
• Congressman Jesus “Chuy” Garcia’s (13.7%) base was both stronger in concentration but smaller in voting clout than Johnson or Lightfoot, reflecting his ethnic appeal with Latino voters, especially on the West Side and other predominately Hispanic areas. As in the last election, these voters are now up for grabs, and could determine the final outcome IF they skew significantly to one of the remaining choices. Eight years ago, Garcia received 34% in the February primary and forced incumbent Mayor Rahm Emanuel to an April run-off, attracting a national progressive following.
• Wealthy perennial candidate Willie Wilson (9.5%) was only one of the other mayoral hopefuls to carry any precincts in the initial results, albeit with smallish pluralities; its significance is that it came substantially out of Lightfoot’s hide, and were clearly a factor in knocking the incumbent out of contention. Wilson also got fewer votes than he received in 2019 when he garnered 10.6%. Maybe he’ll take his gas card giveaways national with another presidential run.

For those not familiar with Chicago and Chicago politics, it’s critical to note how race and ethnicity play a role in these outcomes. Even today, Chicago remains one of the most segregated big cities in America – check out this map, using 2020 census data.

So, you have Vallas with about a third of the vote; the two major progressive candidates, Johnson and Garcia, with about a third of the vote, and the remaining third going to Lightfoot, Wilson or someone else. Those voters are mostly Black and without a favored candidate, will be highly targeted as well as less progressive Garcia voters.

Prediction – this race will be very close in April.

In politics, the strategy is often easy; what is hard is understanding the race. For both Mayor Lightfoot and Garcia, they clearly fell victim to this as they never understood what the race was about.

Over the years, we’ve learned the warning signs that will help you spot that your campaign is heading in the wrong direction.

If you’ve had any of these thoughts… It may be time to make some changes.

Nobody watches tv or reads direct mail.
Make sure that your decision making is backed with data, not just your own opinion. Voters get their information many different ways, it’s important to cover the spread.

We’re going to talk to everyone!
While you certainly don’t want your targeting to be so narrow that you aren’t communicating with enough people to win, going too broad often means you won’t talk to any of your targets enough.

My friend has a database.
Homemade databases and CRMs are a disaster. Collecting your data in a tested, proven system will save you hours of time later. Plus, not collecting data in the same format that your mail firm is using will cost you additional money.

I don’t want to mention my opponent’s name.
People need to know the difference between you and your opponent, especially if you’re running against an incumbent.

Campaigns are all about name recognition.
Sure, name recognition counts – but voters connect with candidates on their story and values, and want to be able to easily differentiate between their choices.

I don’t want to do call time.
Losing campaigns don’t put the time and energy in connecting with donors. If the candidate is avoiding call time, everyone else on the team will spend hours trying to figure out how to raise the money – wasting valuable time that can and should be spent on voter contact.

People are bored of my message.
No, they’re not. You’re bored of it. Message repetition and discipline allows for your message to break through.

It’s done differently in ______.
People always think there is something unique or different about their city, county, region or town. And to a certain extent, there is! But the fundamental principles of communicating with voters remain the same regardless of the uniqueness of your community.

I don’t care what the poll says 
Then why did you spend the money on one?

The IE will do that.
Don’t count on other people to save you. Control what you can legally control and chart your own destiny. IE budgets change and we’ve seen multi-million dollar IEs move to other districts/states overnight.

Freshman Congressman George Santos has been in the press a lot: fabricating his education, his career, his volleyball prowess, his family history; accused of stealing money from a GoFundMe for an ailing dog, crimes committed in Brazil, and questionable campaign finances. It wouldn’t be surprising if more installments in his saga come to light. With so much drama, including his stepping down from committee assignments, we’re left wondering if he will finish his term. And if he does, will he run for reelection? If you’re like us, you may be thinking, “There’s no way he could possibly win, right…?”

So we looked into it.

Members of Congress who have been involved in scandals and sought reelection afterwards actually have remarkably good track records of winning reelection.

A group of political scientists (such a misnomer, it’s more of an art) examined the reelection fortunes of all members of the House of Representatives who became involved in serious ethics scandals over a 34-year period. The researchers studied a total of 88 members with a scandal and found:

• 26% resigned or retired.
• 25% lost in the next primary or general election
• The remainder—43 representatives, or about half of all members, touched by scandal during the study period—were re-elected. Generally, nearly nine-in-ten incumbents untainted by controversy win their races.

Most congressional incumbents don’t have close races and tend to win their reelection by 33 percentage points. After a scandal, however, their margin of victory decreases by 12 percentage points, to about 21 points. So, scandal does have a cost, even if the embroiled candidate wins.

And the effects of scandal linger longer than just one election cycle. In the election following the initial drop in support, incumbents gained back about half of the votes. It is not until the third election after the scandal that their average victory margin was back in line with the average for incumbents.

A second study specifically examined sex scandals in the era of #MeToo. The results show that incumbents who are involved in a sex scandal or other private, personal matters have a higher rate of retirement than members involved in a corruption scandal. While both sex scandals and corruption scandals reduce the incumbent’s vote share in the subsequent general election, the sex scandals have a slightly greater effect.

Will we see the return of Santos in the next Congress? Our bet is no, but like all things in politics, you don’t know until you know.

From all of us at CN4, we hope you had a fun and restful holiday. In taking stock of the past year, we’re happy to report it was CN4’s biggest yet. In 2022, we elected Democrats and progressive candidates from coast-to-coast, defeated incumbent Republicans, and made award-winning media for our clients.

As the 2022 cycle fades into the rearview, we’re making new resolutions and setting sights high.

Dean Nielsen
This year, I’m excited to try new targeting techniques using online video, particularly exploiting AI-powered consumer attributes to bring better decision making to online marketing, including tighter message segmentation for various audiences. I enjoy using technology to get an edge over other campaigns – super important in this era of close races.

Breann Pugnetti
This year I am really looking forward to working in new communities and communicating with new constituencies. One of the best parts of 2022 was learning more about Texas and Rhode Island, and now I am excited to bring our expertise in organized campaigns and compelling media to new faces and places. Plus, personally I want to travel this year, so reach out and we’ll work together on your next campaign!

Michael Kolenc
Shocking, but I’m not a “New Year’s resolution”-kind of person.  But much like a dog forced to take its medicine, wrap that resolution request in cheese and call it a “goal” and I am all over it.  In 2023, I am going to try to use the gym shoes I take on work trips more, rather than allowing them to take up limited suitcase real estate.  Oh, and let’s go find someone to run against Ted Cruz, too!

Candace Mettle
I’m eager for more opportunities to create exciting digital communications. We saw in 2022 how an engaging social media presence can hype up the base, while providing access for curious voters to learn more about a candidate. The digital sphere is simultaneously hyperspecific and a wide, wild territory, and it’s a fun challenge to balance its duality when producing media.

Jess David
Politics is a team sport and I’m feeling motivated by 212 Democrats sticking together. I want to bring that energy into my 2023. My goal this year is to be the best team member I can in all aspects of my life; whether that be lending an ear (or a hand or a shoulder) or making innovative, quality mail. 2023 is about building strong teams and winning through collaboration.

What are you hoping to accomplish this year? We want to help you get there. Send me a message at dean@cn4partners.com and let’s talk about how we can work together to achieve great things.

Don’t we all have one non-work-related race that lights us up? Maybe it’s the candidate, or the district, or the short-term implications that makes us want (or need) to follow every detail? It’s also safe to say that we all could use a little reading material to keep us up tonight (this is not a paid advertisement for Taylor Swift). So in honor of one of our nation’s greatest storytellers (yes, we are still talking about Ms. Swift) we thought we’d tell you the races that we are watching.

Harris County, home to 4.7 million, is treated like a playground by right-wing oil men and developers, and they are convinced they can take out a rising star in Democratic politics, Judge (county executive) Lina Hidalgo, along with every Democratic judge who sits on the bench. They have generously funded candidates and PACs, and flooded TV with millions in ads putting crime and corruption at Democrats’ feet.

There is a lot of paid media right now, and it is moving poll numbers and raising people’s blood pressures.  My concern is immediate and long-term.

A year ago, Democrats had their eye on picking up a seat on the County Commission. The possibility Republicans could regain control is stomach turning because it will mean policy and reform rollbacks. The current budget impasse adds to the drama.

I’m tracking this race because it is clear that the 2023 election cycle has already started.  The messages about crime and corruption we are seeing now will have a lingering impact on the electorate.  People running for Houston Mayor and City Council in 2023 should consider the lingering effects since they have more responsibility to deal with crime than Lina Hidalgo, despite what you’re seeing on TV.

I was born and raised in Cranston, Rhode Island. You may know it as the inspiration for the town Quohoag from Family Guy, the birthplace of the U.S.’s most recent Miss Universe, or, if you’re following House races this year, the hub of one of the most competitive elections of the cycle.

Allan Fung was my mayor for most of my adult life. He has tried a couple times to leverage his folksy, faux-moderate image into the governor’s office. He’s been shaking hands and kissing babies here for a long time and it seems like he may finally be poised to win something. It’s been a pretty surreal experience to see my home district go from a safe, blue, 60-40 district to a messy, tossup, open seat seemingly overnight.

Dems seem fixated on putting Fung’s moderate image to the test. It’s not illogical; Biden won the district by 13 points. The question is whether it’s enough. In a race between a candidate people like versus a platform people support, who comes out on top? That’s a question I’m looking to see answered in several districts this year.

So, In my “free time,” I’m working with my local Dems, doing what I can to keep this seat.

Oregon (pronounced like “oregano”) has a special place in my heart so the race I’m closely watching is the Governor’s race, which has turned into an absolute sh*t show. I do not think that Oregon is turning into a Republican state but there is some action happening in Beaver state. With an incredibly unpopular incumbent, Governor Kate Brown, being an absolute downer, a dynamic but flawed Democratic candidate, former House Speaker Tina Kotek, AND an independent candidate happily funded by those who maybe (errr. do) desire the Republican Christine Drazan to win, this gubernatorial seat in the +16 2020 Biden state is a toss up.

I hope Multnomah County voters come to play and juice the Democratic turnout so the best candidate, Tina Kotek, wins. However, if they don’t, I believe the Dems will look to the independent candidate as a party-pooper, but perhaps some more introspection might be needed. Democrats and our allies need to figure out how to boost our champions while also creating dynamic candidate brands so voters have a story to latch on to. Tina is bringing a record of great accomplishments to the campaign and yet, perhaps her downfall will be that her accomplishments actually bogged down her reason for running. Stay tuned!

Luck and chance are underrated factors in politics in my opinion, perhaps because it leads to a sobering realization: there is so much one can do before the window of opportunity closes. That is why I’m watching Charles Booker’s second senatorial bid. The factors that made Booker’s 2020 Democratic Senate Primary run exciting are absent this time around, and like many campaigns nationally, Booker faces a more nebulous and divisive electoral environment.

Kentucky isn’t on everyone’s minds now, and I think it’s because many observers took the wrong lessons from Amy McGrath’s loss. Deep red states like Kentucky need continuous work if we want them to flip. Yet people have short bandwidth with supporting campaigns. They direct it to a candidate and once that candidate is finished, they move on to the next shiny new person. It’s a major disservice to the emerging talent wanting to transform their state and contributes to the tendency for compelling candidates to lose steam on their second or third attempts.

Let’s be clear, deep red states are extremely hard to flip, and a state like Kentucky has a much more nuanced electoral environment than outsiders can imagine. And Booker will surely lose– for any Democrat in a deep red state, the question is always, just by how much. We should still pay attention to these races so that we can create the infrastructure needed to sustain support of new leaders so that eventually, some of them can win.

I always like looking at the story behind the story. Secretaries of state and state attorney generals have an enormous influence on both state and national governments. The majority of attorney generals (30) and secretary of state offices (27) are on the ballot this year. About 15 of the 57 races are competitive.

In particular, I’m watching the Nevada and Arizona secretary of state races, where several of the most extreme election deniers have a narrow lead over the Democratic candidates in the most recent polling. Nationally, Republicans have nominated seven election deniers for secretary of state offices, as well a large number of election deniers who are running for local election administrative offices.

Onward to the AG races, there’s a number of tight races. Even though Kansas is a red state, the AG race is tied, with a large number of voters undecided due to the poor quality of the GOP candidate, former Secretary of State Kris Kobach.  Arizona features a Republican novice who has made anti-Semitic remarks running against a former Republican-turned-Democrat. In Iowa, the Democratic AG has been in office for 38 years (longest serving in US history!) and is facing a strong challenger. In Wisconsin, the AG’s race could determine the fate of abortion rights, and thankfully the Democratic candidate has an overwhelming financial advantage. And in Michigan, the Republicans have nominated yet another election denier, this time for AG, but the Democrat leads by 10 points.

We’ve heard it over and over again this year- “Abortion is on the ballot.” And for me that rings especially true in Michigan, where not only are prominent pro-choice / pro-freedom candidates on the ballot but also an actual constitutional amendment. Governor Gretchen Whitmer took on the fight to protect abortion rights in Michigan head-on with her lawsuit against the outdated 1931 law that would go back into effect once Roe was overturned. With Michigan’s Republican majority in the gerrymandered legislature, Whitmer was the only line of defense to protect rights for millions of women, and she won. Now she faces Republican Tudor Dixon, who has clearly stated she does not support the right to choose, even in cases of rape and incest. The contrast could not be clearer, and the stakes could not be higher. Without Big Gretch, the right to abortion is on the line.

There are a few other factors at play that make Michigan even more interesting to me– the constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights and newly drawn maps from an independent, citizen-led redistricting commission. Could fairer maps and voters motivated to protect abortion access in the state turn Michigan just a little bit bluer?

Football, for me, always marks the beginning of election season, which I am grateful to have a distraction considering the state of the Seahawks roster (Drew Lock and Geno Smith? SERIOUSLY?) … We made it through the dog days of summer and the late primaries and now November is just around the corner.

At CN4, we’re seeing some great content get released. We measure content by how effectively it accomplishes its goal. We are wary of content that seems to be aimed at two audiences: 1) the money-raising twitter-verse and 2) actual voters. While there is the axiom two birds-one stone, we question whether we are sacrificing maximum potency for potential efficacy.

Political advertising, because of its innate nature (rushed timing, high societal effect, massive media reach), should be foremost focused on really accomplishing a singular goal.

Example 1: Mothers Against Greg Abbott
We are loving that what was once the big announcement video has now turned into a key fundraising strategy for campaigns once they realized they had more than one bite at the viral apple. CN4 client Mothers Against Greg Abbott is making some great content to fund their voter-contact program.

Example 2: Dr. Kim Schrier for Congress’ Bench Ad
Props are key! One question I have for them is, did they bring the bench with them or were they able to find the same exact (or very similar) benches. Either way, we love it because this is clearly aimed at voters and every word is highly tuned and researched to be effective.

At CN4, we take pride in our focus on matching budgets and goals because there are many ways to create an impact. If you are ready to launch your political programs, let’s talk and work together to develop an effective plan. Call, text or email us!

This is the second in a series of posts about the different advertising mediums and the important choices you’ll be making in your campaign or Independent Expenditure effort. You can view our post about Direct Mail here.

I want to start out that the most effective media plans are layered and dynamic – each medium supporting the others while also playing to their own strengths. In that vein, it is important for us to know all the strengths and potential questions about utilizing the different options.

Political campaigns have six major choices when deciding what kind of advertising to purchase: direct mail, television, radio, newspaper, paid phones/texts and digital. None of these mediums are the “best” – they are simply tools in your toolbox. As you run your campaign, you and your team get to choose the right tool to apply to the problem.

In the last 10 years, skepticism about the effectiveness of spending on television advertising has increased. Other mediums have entered into the landscape and consumption habits have shifted.

Every campaign has its own balance of mediums but here are some of the things we think about when we’re considering television advertising:

• Television advertising can be enormously powerful. Even in extremely hard, competitive races where both sides have large ad buys, studies have shown consistent, positive effects of television ads aired in the last 60 days of the campaign.
• The wide reach, even though not as targetable as other mediums like direct mail, can be cost-efficient.
• Some research even indicates that television ads are motivating to the base, and discouraging to the opposition base voters. Perhaps GOTV should be rebranded – Get On TV.

Here are some questions that come up often:

• Is television viewership down? The amount of television that Americans watch is declining in favor of streaming, especially during the early part of the pandemic when many accelerated their switch to streaming. Depending on whose data you look at, most Americans still watch 2-3 hours of live TV a day.
• Are digital views the same as television views? If we’re talking apples to apples, or a 30-second, non-skippable ad, sure. The challenge is that there isn’t a lot of this type of inventory available. There is far more 6-second and 15-second out there, and Facebook video ads are often scrolled right past.
• What about saturation? For campaigns with large amounts of voters, television becomes the go-to advertising method. That is why you’ll see Congressional or statewide races in expensive ad wars with candidates, IEs and party committees all saturating the airwaves. We’ve seen the cost-per-point skyrocket in these cases and television stations chop time off of programing to squeeze in more ads. In these cases, there’s very much a diminishing return so if you are in one of these ad wars, focus on the creative to get advertising that breaks through the clutter.

For legislative or local candidates with smaller budgets, local cable might be a good option. Cable is bought by cable “zones” which may or may not be a good fit for your jurisdiction. Cable has about 75 million households, down from 95 million four years ago. For reference, there are about 124 million households in America. However, cable television viewers tend to be homeowners, older and wealthier than the average voter – attributes also closely tied to voting. In many areas, cable still reaches 50-60% of the electorate.

It’s always important to build your ad spending for your particular district, candidate, budget, electorate and campaign. Different voters watch and digest information through different channels of communication – so it’s important that your strategy takes this into account. We’d love to sit down with you and build a custom strategy for your campaign.

Let’s talk about campaign advertising. As part of your campaign budget, you should be setting aside from 60% to 70% of your money on paid advertising.

It’s important to tailor your advertising budget to your particular district, candidate or ballot issue, electorate and size of the campaign budget. Different voters are accessible using different modes of communication and it is important to strike a balance.

Political campaigns have six basic choices when deciding what kind of advertising to purchase: direct mail, television, radio, newspaper, paid phones and digital. None of these mediums are the “best” and it is important to recognize that they are simply tools in your toolbox. As you run your campaign, you and your team get to choose the right tool to apply to the problem.

This is the first in a series of emails about these different mediums and the important choices you’ll be making in your campaign or Independent Expenditure effort.

Here are our thoughts about… Direct mail.

Direct mail is one of the oldest tactics of political persuasion. Politicians in the English House of Commons first used direct mail in the 17th Century. In America, the “franking” privilege – sending mail for free to your constituents – first started with the American Continental Congress in 1775 and the First Congress wrote it into law in 1789.

The persuasive impact of direct mail can be proven in studies by groups such as the Analyst Institute, which has conducted more studies on direct mail than on any other mode of communicating to voters. Our own studies, covered in a previous email, have detailed this as well.

Advantages of direct mail:

1. Reach. The single largest advantage of direct mail over any other kind of voter communication is that nearly all registered voters are reachable via mail since their addresses can be sourced directly from the voter file. This is especially true in vote-by-mail states where you know the ballot is sent to the very same address.
2. Targeting. Another big advantage is that targeting is very easy and accurate. Sending a piece to seniors, certain geographies, women, targeting highly engaged voters, etc. is very simple for all campaigns.
3. Sophisticated Targeting.  For larger campaigns, testing using Experience Informed Programs, or EIPs, helps campaigns further refine lists. We’ll discuss this more in a later email as well. However, a critical use of EIPs is to remove voters from universes who will ignore or reject your messaging is crucial for running cost-effective programs and eliminating backlash. Depending on the quality of list enhancements, micro targeting and modeling are also great as more sophisticated tactics to send your message to the most persuadable voters.
4. Unusual sizes and formats. Direct mail allows you to create interesting interactive formats, such as scratch-off cards, interactive games, feature peel-off stickers or it can be sent in designs and packages that make it appear as official, government-produced messages. Direct mail can be in packages, envelopes with live stamps and handwritten addresses. In addition, direct mail also can be personalized at the voter level, using a digital printing technology to create personalized voter report cards or other customized creative presentations.
5. Multiple candidates or initiatives. Mail can carry messages for more than one candidate. Voter guides are a useful tool for informing voters about multiple things at once! And, especially for complex ballot issues, mail allows for voters to learn about the nuances of a ballot issue at their own pace.
6. Unlimited Frequency. Unlike digital or television advertising, mail never runs out of inventory.
7. Youth. Despite rumors to the contrary, recent studies have shown that young people actually do read their mail. And, voter returns in 100% vote-by-mail states like Washington and Oregon prove they do as well – it’s the only way to cast a ballot.

Downsides of direct mail:

• It takes time. The creation, printing and delivery process can take as short as 3 days but typically longer.  Other mediums might be better for “rapid response.” The last mail piece must be mailed six days before the election or pay a much higher first-class postage rate.
• Diminishing returns. Like all media, the first piece of mail has the greatest marginal effect, while the second piece will have a bit less effect, etc. However, there are also decay factors and a cumulative effect of pieces. Once mail programs get large, perhaps increase the size of the print run or sub-target groups.
• People move and pass away. About 11% of Americans move each year; these numbers are significantly higher for people under 30 and lower incomes. Another 8% die annually. Voter lists are relatively accurate these days but are by no means perfect, and there is a lag factor in cleaning up and updating these lists.
• Quality of list enhancements. Political parties, labor unions and other groups enhance voter files with information from commercial list vendors to learn more about voters. These enhancements can include information on race or ethnicity, if they have children or even if they have a pet in their house. However, these enhancements can be inaccurate. Surname matching for race and ethnicity may not always be accurate. For example, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson was classified as “white” in their voter file, because he had an Anglo first and last name. A long story to say that sending mail to some of these subgroups can be problematic.
• Saturation. Toward the end of a campaign in a targeted district, voters can and do receive multiple pieces of political direct mail in a day. Studies have shown that these pieces still have an effect, but obviously it’s preferable to have the mailbox to yourself!

Here is a link to our winning (elections and awards!) direct mail. 

We’ll cover more of the paid advertising methods (tools) in later emails. The most important takeaway from this is that you find the tool that best matches the problem – not the other way around!

Many non-profit organizations might believe they legally must stay away from politics. However, that is far from the truth. In fact, smart 501c-3 nonprofits can play a critical role in elections. There are, of course, legal restrictions but we wanted to share some work we have done for our 501c-3 clients.

Over the years we’ve helped many c-3 groups strategically use their resources to communicate with voters. C-3 groups have a critical resource advantage when it comes to communicating to voters because they can use the non-profit postage rate – a savings of 10 cents per piece. This cost savings isn’t captured by any other medium or organization.

Labor unions can use their non-profit postage stamp when communicating to their members, even when doing express advocacy. We suggest that every union have a member-mail program. This piece from the New Jersey Education Association was sent to 20,000 member-households in New Jersey’s 3^rd Congressional District. Congressman Andy Kim won this election by fewer than 4,000 votes.

Every state Democratic and Republican party has the ability to produce pieces that qualify for their non-profit postage permit. We’ve seen some state parties use this ability to fully coordinate with candidates to great effect, saving candidate campaigns a ton of money.

501c-3 non-profit organizations can – and do – play a huge role in voter turnout and registration. Here is a piece from the Washington Environmental Council.

Ballot initiatives are another great way for non-profits to engage in the political space. This piece from the Colorado Civic Engagement Roundtable advocates for passing Amendment 65, an anti-Citizens United proposition.

At CN4, we have decades of experience advising clients of all types on how to accomplish their goals using the tools at their disposal. Let us know what you’re thinking about because we are thinking about young voter registration drives (using postage-paid returns), social pressure advertising to ensure communities of interest are engaged, in-language communications, member-mail and so much more! Let’s work together and build an effective program. Give me a call at (281) 989-7353 or email me (Michael@CN4Partners.com) to set up a time to connect.

Let’s talk about 2022 (and beyond).

While watching the Super Bowl last Sunday, the ads brought in to sharp focus one of the top issues of the 2022 campaign – cost of living, or what some would call inflation.

This is the inevitable successor to 2020’s “unprecedented times” which of course had many precedents. Although most commercial advertisements were (and always are) positive, mostly because “feel like shit and buy my product” doesn’t really sell that well, several ads are touching on the undercurrents of financial stress.

Rocket Mortgage’s ad featured Barbie trying to buy her dream home, but was swamped in a competitive market and featured dolls named Cash Offer Carl, Better Offer Betty and House Flipper Skipper. Thankfully our hero does win the house, but leaves the other dolls to consider a fixer upper castle with “good bones but really bad neighbors.” For those of us 80s children, it’s Castle Grayskull from He-Man.

Seattle-based Expedia tried to get people to stop spending on “stuff” and instead spend on … well, you know. And E-Trade tried to get its spokesbaby – retired for more than 10 years – to return to work because customers are “getting crushed by inflation.” My question is more, who the hell can afford diapers and childcare for a baby that still hasn’t grown up after 10 years. I guess better than college tuition.

Meanwhile, the administration seems flummoxed by the issue of inflation, preferring to ignore the issue or simply wishing that it goes away.

“I think it was back in July you said inflation was going to be temporary. I think a lot of Americans are wondering what your definition of temporary is,” NBC’s Lester Holt said to Biden Thursday.

Biden responded by calling Holt “a wise guy.”

“According to Nobel laureates – 14 of them that contacted me – and a number of corporate leaders, it ought to be able to start to taper off as we go through this year,” the President said.

No real person really gives two sh*ts what Nobel Laureates have to say about this. We want to hear that the President gets it (“feels our pain” in the parlance of a different era) and that the White House has some solution in mind.

Meanwhile, we’re hearing NOTHING from the President or the Democratic Party about the fact that corporate CEOs have been open about the fact that they plan to raise prices, despite many of them having seen profits rise during the pandemic.

Here’s what those corporate CEOs are saying in their own words:

Kellogg CEO Steve Cahillane recently touted a “very, very strong performance” at the end of last year that was “mostly driven by price.”

“What we are very good at is pricing,” Colgate-Palmolive CEO Noel Wallace said in November. “Whether it’s foreign exchange inflation or raw and packing material inflation, we have found ways over time to recover that in our margin line. And that is certainly the focus right now in the business.”

“We’ve been very comfortable with our ability to pass on the increases that we’ve seen at this point,” Kroger Chief Financial Officer Gary Millerchip said in October. “And we would expect that to continue to be the case.”

This story is very revealing.

First, Americans are rightfully angered by price increases across the board – in health care, housing, consumer goods and other essential sectors. Second, the White House refuses to admit it has a problem, who the real culprit is and what its solution is.  And finally corporate backed commercial advertisers incorporate real people’s real anxiety into their sales pitches, which feeds more anxiety and concern about the issue.

So if you’re in the White House (and there are a few on this list), here’s a few suggestions:

1.     Admit there is a problem.
2.     Point out the real culprit – greedy corporate CEOs.
3.     Have a detailed plan with solutions in different sectors (for example, some of the top drivers of inflation are college tuition, health care, energy and goods and services).

The alternative? Hear from the voters in November.

About CN4 Partners:

CN4 Partners is a Political and Media Strategy firm that specializes in helping progressive candidates and organizations win. We have worked in 36 states, helping elect people like Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Gov. Jay Inslee, Gov. Tony Evers, Gov. Phil Murphy as well as on behalf of organized labor, progressive organizations and ballot issues. We provide strategic guidance, campaign plans, and produce political media that is both effective and innovative.

Job Description:

CN4 is seeking an Associate, Client Strategy to work with Client Strategy team on performing the basic functions related to our client delivery services, including managing internal projects, supporting mail production, and performing occasional client communications. This role will report to Breann Pugnetti.

Key Responsibilities:

• Work closely with client-lead on day-to-day deliverables and communications
• Support management of all client & project operations
• Help train and serve as the point person for campaign staff
• Assist in the execution of media campaigns for clients, from conceptualization to implementation
• Coordinate with Creative and Data teams to complete project deliverables

Job Qualifications:

• BA/BS required
• Strong project management experience; detail-oriented
• Ability to work independently
• Excellent communications skills, particularly strong at writing. A writing test will be administered to finalists
• Proficiency in Microsoft Excel, Word, PowerPoint and Google Workspaces (previously Gsuite)
• Valid driver’s license.
• Passion for progressive political causes

Nice to have, but not must have:

• Political campaign, progressive organization or labor union experience
• Basic graphic design experience a plus
• Experience with NGP/VAN
• Experience with Canva

Position Location:
Seattle, Washington. While we have a flexible work schedule a majority of the time this position will be in-person in our offices as public health guidance allows for.

Salary:
$50,000 – $57,000

Benefits:
Unlimited vacation time, 401(k), 100% employer paid health care, 3 months paid leave on birth, adoption or fostering a child.

Values statement:
CN4 is an Equal Opportunity Employer dedicated to workforce diversity that celebrates, supports, and promotes diversity and inclusion. Women, people of color, disabled, veterans and LGBTQ individuals are strongly encouraged to apply.

How to Apply:
Please send resumes and cover letters to: Breann Pugnetti, breann@n4partners.local.

We are very excited to announce that Jess David is joining CN4 Partners as a Vice President. She will focus her boundless energy on providing campaigns or progressive organizations with compelling strategic advice and exceptional media products that win elections.

For those of you new to our list, CN4 Partners is a full-service Democratic media and strategy firm with offices in Seattle, Houston, and now the eastern seaboard.

Jess David was born and raised in New England politics; her first campaign volunteering gig was when she was 6 years old! Since then, it was clear her passion for electoral politics would take her to some of the hardest campaigns in the Northeast and beyond.

In 2014, she helped Gina Raimondo become Rhode Island’s first female governor. Jess moved down south and in 2017 was the field director for the Virginia House Democratic Caucus, picking up 15 seats in the House of Delegates (the largest Democratic gain in VA since the 1800s). At the DCCC in 2018, Jess’ region picked up 10 districts, held 3 districts, and won the PA-18 special (Rep. Conor Lamb) in what the New York Times deemed a “wipeout” for the GOP in the Northeast.

In 2020, she led Congresswoman Cindy Axne’s successful re-election campaign in Iowa; one of only seven Democratic House victories in Trump-won districts.

In the last 5 years, Jess David has helped run some of the most successful programs on tough campaigns. She succeeds because she listens to voters, develops strong plans driven by local priorities, and fosters a culture of high-achievement, creativity, and collaboration every step of the way.

At CN4, she will be splitting her time between Washington, DC, and the northeastern United States, yet like all of us will be working nationally.

Please join us in welcoming Jess to our team! You can reach her at Jess@CN4Partners.com and (401) 595-0452.

The end of the year brings time for not just Hanukkah, Christmas, candy canes and holiday lights, but for reflection. This is true for us here at CN4 as well … but we sure do like the candy canes.

In 2021, we were part of campaigns coast-to-coast, helping elect candidates in races from governor to school board. Our national work helps us understand and get ahead of demographic shifts, as well as getting a pulse on how public opinion is swaying key subgroups of voters. Here are some of the impactful projects that we had the privilege of being part of this year.

In one of the biggest wins for working people in 2021, we helped beat odious right-to-work proposals in Montana. Our client, the Montana Federation of Public Employees, deployed an integrated video and mail program to help communicate to their membership and public. This was the first time that right-to-work legislation was defeated on the floor of a legislative body in a state completely controlled by Republicans.

We continued our work (and had a bit of fun too) with MFPE on a member engagement and branding campaign that is running now. This ad mimics a AFSCME parody ad from the 1970s and is designed to get viral member-to-member engagement.

We were also part of the outside effort to re-elect Gov. Phil Murphy in New Jersey, which turned out to be incredibly close. We helped the New Jersey Education Association with a multi-piece mail effort. We produced a mailer that emphasized the Governor’s support of public education – as well as his height – and was an incredibly noticeable 7 inches wide by 15 inches long.

In Seattle, we helped elect the incoming Mayor, Bruce Harrell, by running a $1.4 million independent expenditure effort with ads on broadcast tv and a robust direct mail program. Mayor-elect Harrell has the distinction of being the city’s first Asian and second African-American Mayor. We won three races in the general election in Seattle and have won all of our last 11 Seattle general election races, electing 7 candidates and passing four ballot issues.

In Texas, we expanded our firm by hiring Houston-based Michael Garcia Kolenc. Michael started his career as a Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Public Policy Fellow for the National Education Association, rising up the ranks to run statewide funding measures and help foster pro-public education candidates.

Our promise to you in 2022 is that we’ll continue doing the same things that we always do – bringing our experience to your campaign to produce compelling media that matches with our informed strategy.

We love to swap war stories – it’s cathartic and oftentimes pretty funny. Here at CN4 the stories seem endless, and while I’m a sucker for the stories that pull on your heartstrings there are some pretty funny ones we thought we’d share as well.

Breann Pugnetti – Silver Lining
It was the summer of 2016, during the Republican National Convention to be precise, and I was out going door to door asking folks to register to vote. It was tough, most people were uninterested or not home but eventually a woman opened the door who just so happened to be watching the circus that was the Republican National Convention. She had never registered to vote- let alone actually voted. Her priority was making sure her two young kids got to school on time and always had food on the table. She didn’t have time to think about politics, and definitely didn’t think that her voice mattered. But that night, she knew that she couldn’t just ignore the hateful rhetoric and dangerous ideas playing out on the national stage. She filled out that registration form faster than I thought possible and profusely thanked me for knocking on her door. Turning in that form was one of the best parts of the 2016 election and I’ve been a big believer in field programs ever since.

Dean Nielsen – Solidarity
In 1997, I was part of the first team of American political consultants to work in Poland. Our client was AWS, which at the time was the electoral arm of the Solidarity (Solidarnosc) labor union. On our first night in Warsaw, some senior labor leaders took us to a local “authentic” restaurant with two Americans who were assisting their efforts – Mike Waske from the International Labor Organization and Scott Carpenter from IRI. When we entered the restaurant and were heading to the table, we passed by a table with some surly looking Russian men. Waske, being a dog lover, reached out as he was walking by to pat their dog on the head. Without seemingly moving a muscle, the dog, a Tibetian Mastiff, in one swift move mauled Waske’s hand to the point he had to be rushed to the hospital. The Russians were seemingly oblivious to the action of their dog, the blood, the screaming American labor leader and the general uproar it caused. Our hosts moved us to the table in the back out of sight and told
us to not say anything. Why? Because we were in the country mere hours and already had our first encounter with the Russian Mafia …. That’s when I knew this gig was gonna be a little different.

Oh, and we won control of the Sejm later that year in an upset victory, capturing 33% of the seats.

Michael Kolenc – These shoes are made for talking
Before sweatpants-on-bottom & nice-shirt-on-top pandemic-Zooming, I was known as the converse-wearing press guy who would wear suits and a tie but always rock the Converses. I think back to why I didn’t wear proper dress shoes during this and honestly I just think it was about keeping a bit of yourself when you’re on a campaign putting your entire heart into it.

On campaigns, it is so easy to get lost in the purpose – in fact, it is almost required. In 2014. I was managing a Fair Maps campaign in Illinois. Part of my job was to act as a spokesperson for the coalition’s effort, meaning I visited a lot of radio and TV stations. One interview – a Sunday-style news show on public television in the Quad Cities – was especially memorable. I dressed for the media interview like I usually do: putting on a suit and tie but maintaining my signature Converse sneakers.

This was certainly not the first TV interview I had done dressed like this, but it was the first interview where the frame consistently caught my shoes. Whoops. Fortunately for me, as noted by someone in the studio, I was not wearing white athletic socks!

As we are going through a PAINFUL redistricting process, I think about that 2014 campaign a lot. I also wonder what happened to those sneakers…

Parker Butterworth – These rainy days can’t get me down
Guess what the weather was like in Portland, Oregon in fall close to the 2010 general election? RAIN. HEAVY RAIN. And there I was. Out there with my clipboard of voter lists who’s only protection was a flimsy plastic sheet protector. I wasn’t protected any better as this was in my youth and, as a proud Pacific Northwesterner, I shunned umbrellas. At this point, I was approaching a year on-the-ground with the Kitzhaber 2010 campaign – the legendary comeback campaign which gave Governor John Kitzhaber a historic third term. It was also legendary as it was 2010 and there weren’t that many wins that year. I was on Team Finance for that campaign but at some point you have to talk to voters. So I walked, knocked, talked, stalked, and would sometimes do a shake to try to out maneuver the water that was surrounding me like I kicked a beehive. I loved every second of it. Folks are also pretty nice to you when you’re sopping wet at their doorstep.

For months, we had been inundated by the national press that 2010 was going to be a DISASTER, a blood bath, etc. And it was in a lot of places. But these last few days I’ve been thinking a lot about that race because we worked hard and we had an extraordinary candidate (who happened to jump off a debate stage to administer first aid to someone who was having a medical emergency!). We’ll have to channel that for this coming year but I know we can do it and we can get some big wins together.

Good storytelling wins elections. Let’s partner up on a project and make some more winning stories to share down the road. Give us a call or send us an email.

If you’ve been on our email list for a long time (first of all – thanks for not unsubscribing) you know that we are huge proponents of early communications. And we wouldn’t be good political communicators if we didn’t repeat that message often. Looking towards 2022 and the battle we face in keeping majorities and winning important elections, we regularly participate in research briefings outlining why we MUST find the resources and the will to start our messaging earlier to find successes.
 
I would be remiss to not thank those who are reading this who are part of these organizations, which have invested hard-raised resources in this research, and the great vendors executing these programs.

1. Some big take-aways that are common threads in these briefings:Democrats need to set the stage in creating a focused positive reason for why we deserve voters’ support. The orange-haired demon is out of the Oval Office so we can’t rely on that huge advantage when it comes to utilizing negative partisanship.
2. As we all know, media consumption habits are changing and we are seeing trends that point to very large advantages when a campaign utilizes long-term storytelling techniques. Long-term storytelling is especially key to winning leaning-Democrat and independent women as well as mobilization targets.
3. Important demographics have checked out and are no longer paying rapt attention to politics on a daily basis. Which means we need to invest resources to convince them why they should still be paying attention. This is an opportunity as we potentially don’t have to compete with established thoughts and instead we can introduce our positive arguments.

Every cycle something happens between the last poll of the previous cycle (election day – the biggest sample size of them all) and the first poll of the next election. Perceptions of candidates go up and down so two or four years later your candidate will be in a very different spot than where you left them on their election day. By utilizing an early communication strategy, we can help set the stage for victory by controlling what that narrative is heading into the campaign cycle before voters are bombarded with everyone else’s messages.

In 2016, we conducted an important series of tests on incumbent state legislators in Colorado and Washington where we sent positive and negative communications about their voting record in the state legislature. This project was funded to have pre- and post-message testing which allowed us to see the efficacy of these communications.

On average across two states and seven districts, we found that a three piece direct mail program into key demographics could significantly shift voter attitudes toward or away from an incumbent, by an average of 7% and as much as 11%. Interestingly enough, the five swing seat Republican legislators who were targeted by the negative-program lost and the two Democratic swing seat legislators that were part of the positive-program were re-elected. In one of the Washington districts where we have contiguous house districts with two members in each we had one Republican that was targeted by the program and one that was not. Polling showed movement away from the targeted GOP member and no change in perception on the non-targeted member, indicating that voters (a) actually read the mail and (b) retained enough information to change their attitude toward the targeted Republican while not on the un-targeted member (whom had the exact same voting record).

Early communication programs (which really should just be part of the main communication program) can take many forms. At CN4, we excel in matching strategies to your target demographics and producing winning media. If you have a political project that you think could benefit from early communication, let’s talk! Give me a call at (206) 794-1961 or email me at parker@n4partners.local.

– Parker

Texas is a constant source of national political news. Superintendents pushing back against Gov. Abbott’s mask restrictions. Republicans redistricting the state with a thumb on the scale. Democrats denying a quorum to keep voting rights from being trampled on.

1. At a time when many are discouraged about the future of Texas, here are two reasons to be optimistic:
   Despite it all, Biden got 46.4% – the highest vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate since 1976 when Jimmy Carter won the state. Think about it – John Kerry lost Texas by 23%, the vaunted Barack Obama machine lost by 12 and 16%, Hillary Clinton lost by 9% and Joe Biden only lost by 5.5%.
2. What about mi gente, the burgeoning Latino population in Texas? Analysis shows that Latino voters, despite trends that we need to watch, did not abandon Democrats. Latino voters did move toward Trump in the Rio Grande Valley and some portions of the Panhandle – but not the 12% that leaked GOP exit polls claimed. It’s also critical to note that many of these same voters continued to support down-ballot Democratic candidates. Far more on-the-ground resources and organizing are essential, particularly in the Rio Grande Valley, to reach out to this key constituency. We cannot have further erosion of the coalition and win statewide in Texas.

How do we turn this confidence into electoral victories?

1. In 2020, Texas Democrats underperformed and GOTV. The Texas Democratic Party estimates that 51% of the voting population are Democrats, but Republicans are more likely to vote. Thus, Democrats must run a superior ground game to overcome this – and with enough strategic investment, will.
2. Democrats came within 23,000 votes of winning the Texas state house. Again, this is a goal that can and will be achieved with authentic candidates and paying attention to campaign fundamentals.
3. Texas Democrats need to massively expand our voter registration. From 2018 to 2020, Democrats lost ground in terms of voter registration, losing about 26,000 net votes including a key late surge of GOP registrations in 2020. However, there are more than enough potential registrants to flip the state if we invest in and execute effective programs at scale.

We believe that the path in Texas leans toward Democrats and are making strategic investments in our operations to help retake the legislature and statewide offices. CN4 Partners has doubled down on Texas, opening an office in Houston. This makes us one of the few national firms to have an on-the-ground presence in the Lone Star State. With sufficient investment and ambition, Texas can be a reliably Democratic state by the end of the decade.

We are excited to welcome Michael Kolenc to CN4 Partners, our political strategy and media firm! Michael’s role will be Vice President and, based in Houston, will run our Texas office.

Michael started in politics as a Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Public Policy Fellow for the National Education Association, rising up the NEA ranks to run statewide funding measures and help foster pro-public education candidates. He has not only worked on campaigns in DC and his home state of Texas as well as in Illinois, Maryland, Oklahoma and Oregon. Michael’s experience managing candidate campaigns, ballot measures and independent expenditures has pushed progressive policy and elected compelling public servants.

Over the last several years Michael has served as a senior advisor to Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg, helping her reform the administration and navigate local, state and national issues. At CN4, Michael is using his political strategy and communication experience to lead innovative projects for clients in his home state of Texas and across the country

Michael will bring so much to our team and yours!

Michael will be reaching out to you to talk about your in-progress our upcoming political projects. He’d love to partner with you on bringing electoral progressive victories to your communities. You can reach Michael at Michael@CN4Partners.com or on his cell at (281) 989-7353.

– Dean
Founding Partner, CN4 Partners

Learn more about Michael below!

Michael Kolenc served as a political and communications strategist for candidates, ballot measure committees and independent expenditure campaigns before he joined CN4 Partners.

He started in politics with the National Education Association as a Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Public Policy Fellow. He later ran an education funding ballot measure for the Oklahoma Education Association and worked in the NEA HQ as the political desk for the western region. He continues to have an interest in education politics.

Michael helped build campaigns from the ground up as a professional operative. Whether it’s negotiating lease or debate terms for gubernatorial and mayoral candidates, to coming up with a creative idea for an independent expenditure, Michael always elevated a candidate or cause by using creativity and up-to-date campaign tactics.

Michael resides in Houston, Texas. He is a graduate of St. Mary’s University of San Antonio.

The political world is heating up with look backs at 2020, new tactics, new data and fresh new perspectives. Here are some of the recent articles that have fascinated us.
 
 
VACCINE GOTV
Colorado is using political firms like our friends at Winning Connections to boost COVID-19 vaccination rates across the state. Healthier Colorado, an advocacy organization with experience managing ballot initiatives, developed the vaccine turnout campaign and partnered with Gov. Jared Polis’s administration.

ANOTHER RECESSION FOR MILLENIALS
The Atlantic’s Annie Lowry writes, “[T]oday’s economic conditions are not just holding Millennials back. They’re stratifying them, leading to unequal experiences within the generation as well as between it and other cohorts.”

DIGITAL AD REPORT
Tech for Campaigns’ 2020 Digital Ad Report has been released. They find that the political digital advertising spend grew 4.6x from 2018 to 2020, outpacing the growth in federal election spending over the same period, which grew 2.4x. However, the digital ad spend is still less than 20% of total spend.

THOSE LAUNCH VIDEOS
Our friend Matt “Mudcat” Arnold at Ampersand discusses the need (or not) for launching your campaign with a video in Campaigns & Elections. CN4’s Parker Butterworth covered two different styles of launch videos as well: link here for that one.

MARKET SIZE
Howard Homonoff writes in Forbes about the size of the political ad market. In the 2019-2020 election cycle, total political advertising spending reached $8.5 billion across TV, radio and digital media. That doesn’t count direct mail, phones or other types of media like billboards or yard signs and likely doesn’t count all spending, which is exceedingly hard to track.

HOW DID YOU GET MY NUMBER
Voters in the New York municipal elections got bombarded, and they aren’t happy, Annie McDonnough writes here.

CLEAN UP OUR OWN HOUSE
Although Democrats like to call out Republicans for trying to suppress voting, the states they control in the Northeast (like President Biden’s Delaware) make casting a ballot more difficult than anywhere else.

TWITTER GETTING READY TO GIVE US DATA
Twitter is studying the biases within its algorithms as part of a new effort to try to understand how its machine learning tools can cause unintended consequences, and the company says it plans to publicly share some of its findings.

BRANDING PARTIES
Alexander Coppock, Donald Green and Ethan Porter write in Politico about studies they’ve done to increase the brand of political parties – and the effects of that brand on the electorate.

We learned a lot from 2020 and are already taking these lessons and building data-driven strategies for our clients in 2021 and beyond. If your political project needs compelling media with innovative strategies, reply to this email or give me a call at 303-746-8876.

We often get asked how much mail costs and how campaigns can get a better deal. Well, like many questions in politics, the answer is “it depends.” We wanted to write this email to try to add a bit more clarity

There are three major components and several minor factors that comprise the cost of a political direct mail piece. The major costs are printing, mailing and postage costs. The minor factors are the cost of creative, strategy, design, photography, sales tax and delivery to the USPS.

Let’s examine those costs. Printing is a large cost driver and the cost per piece of printing goes down as you print more pieces. This is because there is a significant amount of fixed costs that get amortized over the length of the print run that can’t happen with smaller, shorter runs. Therefore, you’ll save a significant amount of money by printing 5,000 of something versus printing two 2,500 piece runs.

Some tactics that we use to bring down the cost of mail include:

1. Size of the piece. A 6×11 piece is the largest piece that you can do for the lowest postage price and has the highest efficiency. That’s why you see so many of them! Large pieces will cost more on a per unit basis, as will adding folds, die-cuts, soundchips, scratch-off panels or any number of fancy tactics.
2. Shipping. Depending on where you are printing, shipping can be a significant cost driver. Whenever possible, printing your mail relatively close to the USPS bulk mail center where your mail is dropping into the stream will save you money. If you are printing mailers four states away from where you are mailing, you may incur additional costs.
3. Size of list. Oftentimes you can save money by more efficiently targeting your mail. For example, you may not need to hit the perfect voting Democratic voter in a partisan race. By carefully targeting, you can reduce the size of your list to save you money. By being smart and strategic, you can get the biggest bang for your buck. At CN4, we have an in-house data expert that helps our clients target the necessary voters.
4. Enhanced Carrier Route (ECR) sorting. If your mailing has enough volume to cover multiple homes in one postal route, your mailing might be eligible for ECR sorting. The USPS passes on savings because you’ve sorted the mail for them. All of our prices build in assumptions about ECR sorting.
5. Digital printing. Depending on what you’re trying to accomplish, sometimes printing on a digital press is cheaper than a traditional offset press.
6. Letter rate vs. flat rate.  USPS facilities are equipped to process letter rate pieces, and they reward you with cost savings as a result. 6 x 11 pieces or a piece folded to that size or smaller will qualify for that rate. Many larger format pieces like an 8.5 x 11 will fall into a flat rate, which will increase postage costs. We do a lot of larger format pieces, but when you need to reduce costs, this is one way you can do it.

Things you should NOT do to save money.

Do NOT use USPS Every Door Direct Mail. To use this product, you have to send mail to every door. It’s great when you’re selling pizza, but bad when you’re selling a candidate, because that means your mail goes to every house, including those who aren’t registered or who don’t regularly vote. And, you’re also advertising to your opponent’s supporters, which is both a waste of money and might create a negative effect (you may have motivated them come and vote – against you!).

Do NOT cut quality. It is possible to print your mailer on newsprint or some other cheap stock, or convert full-color images to black and white to save some money, or make a piece the size of an index card, but remember what you’re trying to accomplish. If you cut back on all of the things that make your mail unique and deliver your message, then you’re not going to accomplish what you need to.

Do NOT use a non-union printing house. Some printing houses value their workers by paying a living wage and health care to their employees by having a union contract. This can, of course, raise prices of the printing but this also deeply aligns with our values. All of CN4’s mail is done at union print houses.

Do NOT use a printer who doesn’t have the capacity to handle the job. In October of an even year, things really get buzzing with the volume of political printing. Just like in any industry, some printers are just better than others and have the volume, capacity and, most importantly, staffing to ensure your mail gets out the door on time. Having a high-quality union shop that has a good track record is worth paying a couple extra cents per piece to make sure the work is done right. We have seen cheap printers make bad mistakes or worse yet have delays that cause you to miss drop dates during the all-important voting window.

There’s an old adage where a customer wanted to get something printed and they said they wanted it cheap, good and fast and the printer said, pick two.

Let’s partner up and win some political campaigns! We’d love to talk with you about what you have going on. Send us an email or give us a call.

Research is a critical part of any political campaign. Determining your weaknesses and your opponent’s weaknesses can make the difference in your election.

Recently, I sat down (virtually) with two of the best researchers in the business, Ben Jones of Jones Mandel and Sonia Van Meter of Stanford Campaigns.

This is a bit longer post than we usually do, but we think you’ll find it as fascinating as we did.

Sonia Van Meter is the Managing Partner of Stanford Campaigns. She moved to Austin in 2003 graduate school at the University of Texas at Austin, but soon found she preferred activism to academia. She joined Stanford Campaigns in 2009, she has worked hundreds of campaigns and IEs all over the country.

Benjamin Jones is the CEO and co-founder of Jones Mandel. Based in Seattle, WA, he is a veteran strategist with 26 years of experience working with candidate campaigns, issue groups and a handful of like-minded corporations. Ben and his team at JM have helped elect six current U.S. Senators, six current Governors, numerous U.S. House Members and many local leaders.

What’s your biggest research coup?

Jones: On a Senate race, my research team figured out that our Republican opponent was a member of an exclusive golf club in Florida that did not admit Blacks or Jews. We followed a tip from one of our donors who caught wind of this possibility. We located the golf club name and sent a staffer to Florida to look for local property records including a deed and mortgage documents near the course to show his residency nearby. We set up the opponent by obtaining three key public records: 1) the mortgage deed of his house on the golf course; 2) the restrictive covenant that was part of the mortgage documents and 3) contact with someone at the club who took a photo of his name in the membership directory.  We handed the hit off to an AP reporter to develop so the story would show up in papers all across the state. When confronted, the candidate denied being a member of the club. The he said he didn’t have many ties to the club, after being forced to admit he was a member. Then had to defend owning a house on the course which had a restrictive covenant that said the house could not be sold to Blacks. The entire episode was a four-day story that was laid out over time.

But other than a specific example to expose a vulnerability of a particular opponent, the biggest research coup I have been involved in over the last 15 years has been to help normalize the process of opposition and self-research into the bloodstream of campaign messaging operations. Research, done well and correctly, is part and parcel of a solid message operation.  Including research at the message table from day one was not part of Democratic political consulting/campaign behavior 15 years ago. Now, candidates and national party committees expect serious candidates to have good self and opposition research on hand to prepare effective contrasts for voters. The notion that research is a given for campaigns today actually took a lot of effort across many firms, people, and functions inside Democratic campaigns. Today, it is not a question of if a researcher is hired, it is a question of when. And that is a positive development for all aspects of Democratic campaigns.

Van Meter: Research successes that destroy a candidate while they’re in the race get more news coverage, but to me, finding research so damning that just letting your candidate know you have it forces them to drop out is far more satisfying. It’s the political equivalent of slitting your opponent’s throat in their sleep. It’s quick, quiet, and cheaper than waging the war. We recently found a police record of an opponent getting drunk at someone’s home and hopping into the shower with a woman he didn’t know, very much against her will. Charges were brought, and he ended up pleading down to a lesser offense. It was years ago, and he was now running for office in a different state, assuming foolishly that researchers wouldn’t have the good sense to check for a criminal record near an address where he’d lived previously. Our client made sure his opponent knew we had the record in our possession. The opponent withdrew from the race about 12 hours later.

What makes a great hit?

Van Meter: SO many things, really, but there’s a difference between a hit that gets lots of clicks, and a hit that moves lots of voters. Stories that involve salacious details of sex, drugs, and other morally questionable behavior will always make headlines and garner attention. But to move voters, the offense has to indicate that the candidate will make those same bad choices when it comes to decisions that will affect their constituents. Turns out voters don’t especially care about cheating on your spouse or smoking pot in college as long as you don’t consistently lecture about the evils of sexuality or gateway drugs. But if there’s hypocrisy involved? If someone’s preaching one thing and practicing another? That’ll get you mileage whether it’s sleeping with your opponent’s wife, double dipping on a pension, or even just taking a double homestead exemption by accident. Intention is everything.

Jones: A great hit usually has local context and is timely in nature. Pivoting off an opponent’s announcement, issue paper, policy statement, or quote gives the hit more legs and relevance. Great hits usually need to relate to voters’ lives in a simple way that gives the hit some stickiness. An easy example would be, instead of saying a candidate supports teachers and public education, the research should point to specific outcomes of that policy belief and position. The positive hit – because hits can also be positives, let’s not forget – would be more along the lines of, “Candidate X supports our local teachers in our 38 schools and even passed a law to provide free and reduced meals to 45% more children so those kids can focus on learning during the day.” Negative hits need to remember their audience and what goal or value it is trying to convey. In other words, the existence of questionable behavior isn’t always enough to persuade the negatives need to be part of a creative narrative to make them stick. Research is a function of message creation that builds legitimacy and trust for a candidate. Narratives are a big part of that process. So, a great hit always keeps the end goal in mind: securing and moving voters.

How is your business changing now that people are bringing more research in house?

Jones: Honestly, our business hasn’t changed. I started my career as an in-house researcher on two Governor races, one Congressional and one Senate race. Our firm understands that there is always room for a consulting firm like ours to work with an in-house research team. In fact, we tell all of our statewide races and other types of clients that they will need us plus a 2-3 person research team (on some races many more). Today’s day to day research needs for any type of client are most likely best handled by the in-house researchers. While the longer, investigative work to write up a large report or dive into a complicated project are better suited for a consulting firm. That could be at a national party committee, interest group, candidate campaign etc. We are able to bring multiple years of collective experience to a project. Oftentimes, part of our agreements include finding, interviewing and training the great in-house staffers.

Van Meter: We’re busier and busier these days, even with folks deciding to do much of their research in house. I think it has to do with the fact that in politics, research is an arena that doesn’t forgive mistakes, and getting good at the job takes years of practice. So many of the top oppo shops in the country are the OGs of the industry, and it’s in part because after 2 decades of research, they’ve seen the evolution of how research gets done. They know where and how to look for everything, what kind of hurdles you can run into, and how to sidestep particular bureaucratic landmines. Experience really is the difference between good and great research.

What’s the most common thing you flag a piece of creative for?

Van Meter: Taking just a little too much liberty with an assertion. We’re always sliding qualifying words and phrases into ads to illustrate timelines, specify responsibility, and clarify affiliations. It’s almost never as simple as “She defended a child sexual assaulter in court.” More often, it’s “She worked for a law firm that represented the insurance company who paid the claim to a family whose child was abused by a former employer of a company.” …not as punchy as “She defended a child sexual assaulter” I’ll grant you, but it’s much, much closer to accurate.

Jones: Research has to work closely with creative to make sure we tell a compelling, but also accurate, story. When evaluating an ad, we have to be sure that the creative team isn’t trying to draw a conclusion that isn’t backed up in the research. We have to work with them to ensure that they tell the factual story. If we make a claim that’s exaggerated, the potential backlash could be immense. We could face a negative fact check, and the other side could accuse our candidate of lying, drowning out whatever message we were trying convey in our ad. Even worse, a false ad risks being taken down, a costly and embarrassing mistake that will drive a negative news cycle for days, if not longer.

What’s your advice for young prospective candidates about how to keep their noses clean, and what about your digital footprint?

Jones: Our advice is to hire a good research firm to guide the early process of self-research. Our self-research process is somewhat different from our opposition research process. With self-research, there is a lot of time and attention spent talking to the candidate’s advisors, and to the candidate themselves. Many early self-negatives can be discovered and dealt with before they can become public. If an ambitious, young prospective candidate could do one thing, it would be to really, really watch what they are doing on social media platforms. So many of the issues that are knocking people down a notch come off social media – especially younger candidates.

Social media is definitely a space where candidates, especially those entering the public sphere for the first time, can get themselves in trouble. Regardless of whether we’re doing self or opposition research, our first priority is to identify all of a candidate’s accounts, which can include campaign, official, and personal accounts. Sometimes they might have a campaign account, for instance, that is used to engage with the public, while maintaining a separate personal account where they are more candid and may even post problematic content.

In terms of flags, it can truly vary. We look for offensive commentary, bullying tendencies and feuds with other users, profane language, and explicit content. We also review their “liked” content, which can provide an insight into their values and beliefs. A candidate might not personally post much, but if they “like” a post from a discredited or biased news source, for instance, that can tell us a lot.

Van Meter: Keeping your house in order isn’t super difficult. If you would be embarrassed or ashamed to hear it read back to you by a court reporter, don’t put it in writing anywhere. Assume all your texts and emails and social media posts might one day show up in a deposition. But in reality, with Gen Z growing up just as much in the digital world as the real one, young people are already uniquely primed for life under a microscope. As long as your behavior represents your authentic self and values, you won’t have to defend anything you didn’t actually believe in.

A huge THANK YOU to Ben and Sonia. We appreciate your time and insight. At CN4, we know strong research is key to telling your story. If your political project needs compelling media with innovative strategies, reply to this email or give me a call at 206-423-0120.

We won 5 Pollie Awards from the American Association of Political Consultants. These are considered the “Oscars” of the political advertising industry. Over 400 firms submitted over 2,700 entries and we were one of the relatively few honored.

• The first was for the Best Use of Targeting for Television, awarded jointly between us and Left Hook, for “Ya Basta,” produced for Julián Castro for President. Professor and Consultant Dr. Robert Marbut told CBS news that Julián Castro’s “Ya Basta” advertisement was “the best three to four thousand dollar buy any candidate has made in the last 20 years.”
• We also won two awards for Portland City Councilmember Dan Ryan’s campaign – Best Use of Television For Small Budget Local Campaign for “Brother Tim” and Best Use of Direct Mail for a Small Budget Campaign for “COVID.” Ryan upset a long-term politician after having been behind 54-36 in our own polling.
• Our advertising for the Montana Federation of Public Employees won an award for the Best Mail for an Independent Expenditure Campaign for Governor, where we overcame 3:1 in outside spending to win the Democratic nomination.
• Finally, we won an award for Best Mail for a Small-Budget Independent Expenditure Campaign for our work for the New Jersey Education Association’s 527 Committee, Garden State Forward. We replaced three incumbent school board members with three first-time candidates.

We’re excited for these victories! We’d love to partner with you on your next campaign and win more elections and national honors.

There are very few things harder to do in American politics than beating an incumbent officeholder. More than 94% of Congressional incumbents win re-election, which is a re-election rate rivaling the Soviet Politburo.

However, each year a few high-profile incumbents lose federal or state offices. We’re proud to have “flipped” seats ourselves in each of the past five years.

If you’re looking to take on an incumbent, here are some questions to ask yourself before running for office.

Has there been a scandal?
The first and most obvious way to beat an incumbent is if they had a scandal. Obviously, some scandals are so big that it results in the incumbent going to jail and not running, however, most scandals are somewhat common. Then it’s up to you and your campaign to communicate these effectively to the voters to convince them to fire the incumbent and hire you.

Has the district changed?
The next most common factor would be if the district and demographics have changed. Over time, demographics shift and particularly long-term incumbents often fail to recognize this trend. Combined with redistricting, 2022 represents a once-in-a decade opportunity to challenge incumbents on new turf.

Is the incumbent arrogant, have they lost touch, or have they broken a promise? All of these are important factors to defeating an incumbent.

Is the community organized against them? Having a fired-up base of angry people helps fuel challenger campaigns.

Some high-profile losers around the country lately include:

• U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski (IL). The main factor in his loss was his opposition to abortion and women’s healthcare, putting him out-of-touch with an increasingly progressive electorate. He had weathered these storms before, but a well-organized and well-funded campaign was too much for him in 2020.
• U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler (GA). The main factors in her loss were finding herself and her husband in the middle of a massive controversy regarding stock sales just before the coronavirus pandemic shut down the American economy, an increasingly controversial incumbent President and a motivated Democratic base energized by the Stacey Abrams-led coalition. And we haven’t even mentioned her controversial comments about the Black Lives Matter movement. A moderate Atlanta businesswoman bizarrely decided to run like a Trump conservative – and lost.
• U.S. Rep. William Clay (MO). The main factor in his loss was a feeling that he wasn’t responsive enough to a new generation of Black activism, specifically the BLM movement. This race played out in the home of the modern anti-police brutality movement, Ferguson, Missouri, and his challenger Cori Bush was a community leader in the protests following Michael Brown’s death.
• U.S. Rep. Martha McSally (AZ). The main factor in her loss was that Arizona voters saw right through her. With degrees from the U.S. Air Force Academy and Harvard, and the distinction of being the first American woman to fly in combat, one would think she would be the ideal candidate to replace John McCain. She launched her political career as a pragmatic, security-focused moderate. She lost twice and then barely won to get into the House where she served as a compromising and moderate Republican. Then when Trump become President, she turned to base politics, attacking the press, accusing now Senator Sinema of treason, and attempted to give politicians Trumpian nicknames. The result? In 2018, she became the first Republican to lose a U.S. Senate race in Arizona since 1965. Then she was appointed to the other Senate seat, and lost again in 2020.
• U.S. Rep. Steve King (IA). The main factor with King’s loss was his ongoing support of white supremacy, which finally led GOP leadership to abandon him. His racist views about immigrants were well known and his conservative district had re-elected him for years. But when leadership had enough and threw him off his committees, that was enough for even his voters.
• U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel (NY). Engel, who had served 31 years, was in a battle over race and generational shifts. Engel was seen as having lost touch with his district that had changed over time, becoming more progressive and diverse. In the wake of AOC’s election the year before in a neighboring district, progressive activists primed to take out another incumbent with a large, motivated volunteer base. Plus, his terrible hot mic moment at a press conference about civil unrest, saying, “If I didn’t have a primary, I wouldn’t care.” Ouch.

It might be unclear at the time of a gaff or bad press or a scandal if it is a challenger’s main “Why Fire” the incumbent point. It is our job to help bring clarity to the process – no matter if you’re running against a 20-year incumbent or for an open seat.

We’re always excited to work with tremendous pollsters like Ruth Bernstein at EMC Research, Anna Greenberg at GQR and Daniel Gotoff at Lake Research Partners. We asked them if they had any assessments and conclusions about the 2020 polling cycle. Guess what? They did.

Anna Greenberg, Ph.D.  serves as managing partner of GQR. She has over 20 years of experience polling in the political, non-profit and academic sectors. In 2014, Greenberg won the “Pollster of the Year” award from the AAPC for her work with Mayor Bill de Blasio’s campaign for mayor of New York City.

She said about 2020:

“We learned that polling error 2016 was not an aberration, but in fact, a reflection of the challenges of polling in the age of Trump.  There are clearly groups of voters who do not take surveys, either because they don’t want to or because we do not have the right tools to reach them.  We will need to work hard in 2022 to figure out how to address non-response bias that produced much closer races that pre-election polling suggested.

It is also the case that we do not invest nearly enough in reaching harder to reach respondents.  Typical congressional surveys rarely oversample Hispanic respondents or include enough cell phone interviews to adequately measure response among younger and voters of color.  This lack of investment may partially explain why polling missed the erosion of support for Democrats among minority voters.

Finally, political polling is a strategic, not a predictive tool. It is only as good as its assumptions about who is going to turn out to vote. Campaigns should continue to feel confident in using diverse research tools (including online polling, text-to-web as well as traditional live surveys) to figure out message and strategy. We should also integrate more qualitative research into campaigns and use non-polling information to help us assess the mood and possible turn out dynamics (e.g., like patterns in early vote in primaries).”

Ruth Bernstein is President and CEO of EMC Research, which she joined in 1994. Ruth is recognized as one of the top pollsters in the field for her ability to keep the research focused on her clients’ goals. She takes the time to understand the overall objectives and provide hands-on practical advice in addition to quality research. Her clients trust her judgment and know her research findings are reliable and will provide a strategic roadmap for success.

Her takeaways about what we learned in 2020 follows:

“Mixed mode methodology! To get a truly representative random sample of likely voters in most communities, surveys will require a mix of methodologies to meet voters where they are. Sampling will likely include a mix of live telephone, text-to-web and email-to-web.

Not all “online” surveys are the same. We must pay careful attention to sampling and how we visually present questions.

The way people vote (early, in person, by mail) along with the significant increase in phone/text/email communication from campaigns has made late polling extremely challenging.

List quality is crucial!”

Joining Lake Research Partners in 1996, Daniel Gotoff has worked for candidates at all levels of the electoral process and on a wide range of issues, including the economy, national security, and government accountability. Sandra Markowitz has been conducting research since 2016, focusing on political campaigns at Lake Research Partners. Previously, McCauley Pugh worked for The Mellman Group and was an intern for US Senator Maria Cantwell.

Their joint take on what we learned in 2020 is this:

“For public polling, there needs to be less emphasis on the horse race itself, and a larger conversation about things like the margin of error and what the numbers presented truly represent. Pollsters also need to continue the conversations they have been exploring about turnout prediction methods, and polling methods in general. Live caller surveys are still the most effective method to reach some demographics, but not all. Online and mixed-mode surveys can reach groups that are otherwise difficult to include in our calling. Despite the relatively modest level of error in 2020, restoring credibility with the public is also important, if for no other reason so that pollsters can once again have greater faith in the quality of their research. But the solution to these bigger questions is not an end to polling, but rather the continued adaptation of an important tool.

Moving forward, it will be more important than ever to devise and report out on multiple turnout models of what the electorate could ultimately resemble on Election Day, rather than settling at the beginning on a single estimate of the likely electorate.

We need to look at who participated and who did not, who terminated part-way through the interviews (where? and why?) and comparing these and other data points to what we know about voters’ partisan voter registration, and/or other such proxies that are appended to voter files(s), the which serve as the provenance of our samples. Additionally, avoiding the types of bias outlined above will require devising new and better ways to account for systemic misses in our interviewing strategies as well as our adjustments of the data (i.e., weighting) once we are out of the field. “

A big THANK YOU to Anna, Ruth and Team Lake Research for sharing these lessons from 2020. I know at CN4, we relish the opportunity to evolve and learn from these lessons. We believe that to provide the best services to our clients and have the best shot to win campaigns, we have to always push forward. Onward to 2021, 2022 and beyond.

– Dean Nielsen and the CN4 Team

Hi there –

We get too many calls from candidates who are making a change to their campaign consulting team. Unfortunately, this happens because candidates weren’t diligent in choosing the right consultant to begin with, or hired based on factors that had nothing to do with their campaign goals and needs.

The increasing number of firms in the political industry make it difficult to find the right one for your campaign. Time is the only limited resource campaigns have so we want to pass along some information that can help candidates and political directors make the decision that is right for them – from the beginning.

Tips:

• Determine what your needs are before even interviewing a political consulting firm.
• Do you want someone to just help with advertising or do you need help from a general consultant? For example, CN4 can operate as your full-service (all types of advertising and general strategy) firm while others offer only one type of advertising or none at all.
• General consultants work on targeting, help you write the campaign plan and hire and guide the manager. The general consultant, if there is one, should be media agnostic.
• Look at the firm website. Most political consulting firms provide a portfolio of recent work on their websites. Political firms will put their best work up there so if you don’t think that work is high-quality, then don’t expect it on your campaign.
• Ask to see examples of media product from similar size races. They might have examples to show you that are similar to what you’ll need for your race.
• What about those awards? In political consulting, there are two widely recognized awards. The first, from the American Association of Political Consultants, are known as the Pollies. The second, awarded from Campaigns and Elections Magazine, are known as the Reed Awards. View some of the Pollie and Reed Awards CN4 has won for our clients.

Here are questions you can ask Democratic political consulting firms when you interview them:

• Who will be doing the actual day-to-day work? With some political consulting firms, the principal pitches a campaign and hands the actual work off to a junior associate. You’ll want to make sure you know who is assigned to your campaign and that you’ll have access to the top folks.
• Do you charge a monthly fee? While sometimes a strategic retainer is needed, most firms that work on federal or major statewide races won’t charge a monthly management fee.
• How many people work for the firm? Bigger isn’t always better and you need to ensure your campaign gets attention.
• How many other clients do they have, and at what level of races?
• What is included in the price for direct mail? What costs are built in and what are extra (is postage included)?
• What is their process for designing mail or producing video or digital advertising?
• Are there other costs associated with your race? Do they charge a winner’s bonus?

Perhaps the most important factor in choosing a consultant is simply this: Do you trust them? Do you trust them enough to take their advice? Do you trust that they are experienced enough to understand the race and make the right choices to help you win the campaign? Do you trust that they will have your best interest (not their bottom line) at heart not only throughout this campaign, but throughout your career? (It is possible you’ll run for higher office, so make sure the firm that you start with has the capacity to help you grow at every level.)

Stay tuned for an updated Toolkit for 2021 but 2020 still has some useful tools in there! I mean, a wrench is a wrench no matter what year. Check it out here.

2021 should be a great year of leaders stepping up and running for local office. Here is CN4’s QuickStart Guide that can help frame how to think about starting up a political campaign.

What’ve you got going on? I’d love to chat with you about your campaign or next political project. Call/text at (206) 794-1961 or just reply to this email.

-Parker

Montana workers had a huge victory yesterday when so-called “right-to-work” piece of legislation was defeated in the GOP-controlled state house. The legislation would have prohibited the requirement of belonging to a union as a condition of employment. This win is particularly remarkable given the large GOP majorities in the House and Senate plus a Republican Governor.

CN4 is proud to have helped the Montana Federation of Public Employees defeat this odious legislation with a combination of video and a direct mail program featured below:

It was an absolute pleasure to work with the MFPE team throughout this project. The entire CN4 team sends a huge CONGRATS and HAT TIP to their success and tenacity in protecting their members.

What political projects or campaigns are you building? I’d love to connect about them and see how we can help you achieve your goals. Call/text/email anytime.

– Dean
(206) 423-0120

For the first time in 16 years, the Montana Federation of Public Employees face a GOP-controlled Legislature and Governor. In other states – such as Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio – that meant introduction of right-to-work and other legislation that targeted labor unions.

MFPE is Montana’s largest labor union and represents teachers, nurses, law enforcement, and other state employees. They wanted to engage their membership to A: increase member buy-in to the union and B: to raise awareness of the potential threat.

“NOT EASY” for MFPE by CN4 Partners

We worked with the great folks at MFPE to message a value proposition to their members over a two-month period using direct mail and digital video products to enhance buy-in.

We are honored to partner with MFPE on these important communications to their members and the public. As political media evolves, we are focusing on implementing new strategies and tactics. If your political project needs compelling media with innovative strategies – give me a call/email and let’s figure out how CN4 can partner with you and help you win.

– Dean
(206) 423-0120

It is announcement video season so let’s get to it! The first tale is…

If you haven’t seen Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ announcement video for governor YOU ARE MISSING SOMETHING SPECIAL. How many American flags can you fit into a video? A lot! Especially if the video is 8 whole minutes of Republican porn. Yep. I said it.

This video hits all the notes and left-no-stone-unturned in conveying Sanders’ message: She is the purest (Trump) Republican that ever was.

Another word for it – and I enjoy it in announcement videos – is blatant. From the salacious and sycophantic Trump/soldier story, to camo duck hunting pictures, you can’t miss the message. It is successful and, honestly, epic.

Most folks don’t watch 8-minute announcement videos but you are on a political consultant’s email list so maybe you will. Check it out here.

Now for the second tale.

In the Sanders’ video, nuance was a dirty word. In our second video, Jeff Jackson’s NC Senate Announcement video, nuance is the point. You’ve got kids doing cute things, you’ve got “was this shot on my iPhone” camera movements, you’ve got the couch sit and stare. You’re in this home and you feel something, like maybe you could be friends with Jeff and his family.

That is the video’s whole point: Relatability.

This is one of my favorite advertising strategies. You might think this is about the 100-County tour or the North Carolina-Centric policies but it’s not – that is just the wrapping for the feel good, slight smile, small chuckle emotional reaction it is playing for. And it works.

Here is Jeff’s video.

The Epilogue:

While these videos are drastically different, they’re both incredibly effective. I always say (to the chagrin of animal-lovers – which I am, by the way) there is more than one way to skin a cat. Here is how:

1. They knew why they were making these videos. There was always an underlaying purpose and they didn’t fall into creative-drift.
2. They both had sufficient budgets. In creative production, you get what you pay for and it is clear these were both professionally done.

What are you working on these days? It is such a great time to get projects off the ground, and we’ve been busy but would love to work with you. Let’s chat. Email me at parker@wordpress-645297-2103551.cloudwaysapps.com or call/text at (206) 794-1961.

-Parker

We all know digital campaigning is a core skillset that your campaign must have – or as we like to say, there is no digital campaign: there is just your campaign.

Recently a conservative organization, the Center for Campaign Innovation, released a nationwide post-election survey of 1,200 voters, with data weighted to match the election results. Plus they included an oversample of 541 donors to political campaigns and organizations.

Some key takeaways:

1. Persuadable voters were more likely to seek out political information using a search engine than partisans. 57% of persuadable voters used search engines to get information about elections and candidates, compared to 47% of Democrats and 37% of Republicans.
2. Donors are far more engaged online than average voters, despite donors skewing older than the typical voter. A majority of donors (52%) reported signing an online petition in the last two years and one in three (32%) shared content online through social media.
3. During the 2020 election cycle, more voters reported receiving text messages than phone calls from political campaigns. Phone banking has been a staple of political campaigning since the 1960s, but text messaging has now overtaken the tactic in terms of reach and scale. This growth is largely due to the advent of peer-to-peer (P2P) texting which enables campaigns to text voters at scale. Bernie Sanders’ campaign pioneered P2P texting in 2016.
4. Donating primarily happens online. 62% of donors surveyed reported giving online, compared to 37% reporting having mailed a check, 11% sending their credit card information in by mail, 8% via in-person event, 4% from a text solicitation, 4% by online event and 3% over the phone.
5. Low propensity voters are more likely to see online video ads than high propensity voters. 54% of low propensity voters have seen these ads, compared to 37% of high propensity voters.
6. When asked about news sources to get information about government, politics, and current events, older voters (65+) were more likely to rely on local TV news (84%) and national broadcast TV news (62%) than the average voter on a weekly basis. Conversely, younger voters aged 18-34 favored social media (72%) and search engines like Google (60%).
7. One in four voters (23%) are “cord cutters” who do not watch traditional TV, instead using streaming services or not watching live TV at all. Cord cutters are younger, with half (48%) of voters aged 18-34 and one in three (31%) voters aged 35-49 comprising this category.
8. Among young voters aged 18-34, nine social media platforms saw daily usage in the double digits. Facebook was the most popular, with 70% reporting having an account, followed by Instagram (63%), YouTube (62%), Twitter (45%), Snapchat (35%) TikTok (26%), Reddit (24%), Twitch (17%), Pinterest (16%).

In 2020, all of these platforms placed restrictions on political advertising, including total prohibition by some.

Read the full report here: National Post-Election Survey Toplines

– Dean

This is the time of year where we get calls from prospective candidates. Oftentimes, they don’t know how to start putting together their campaign.

Here are some questions we’ve compiled to help candidates think through a political campaign.

Who are you and why are you running?
This is the single hardest question to answer in politics- but probably the most important. Before running for office, it’s essential you know who you are and the values you stand for. If you cannot answer this question, then you cannot expect others to jump on your bandwagon. Very good politicians have had their candidacy sunk because they couldn’t answer why they want to run for office — believe it or not, we have people call and say they want to run “because it’s their time.” Don’t be that person. If you don’t have a compelling answer to this question, take some time to think about it before you throw your hat in the ring.

What sets you apart from the other candidates?
Voters need to know what sets you apart from the other candidates in the field. Is it your stances on the issues that are completely different than other candidates? Your background and life experiences? Your track record of results? What makes you stand out?

Are you ready to ask your friends for money?
Campaigns need money. Many prospective office holders have failed because they either couldn’t – or more likely, refused – to spend the time and energy necessary to raise the money to run a competitive race. Oftentimes, we see progressive candidates really hung up on fundraising, and struggling to ask their friends and family to support their campaign financially. Most people want to donate money- you just have to ask.

What do you need to raise?
This can be determined by looking at past competitive races for the office you seek. It’s important to look at several past election cycles since sometimes races aren’t competitive and candidates don’t raise much money. Every year we see more and more people donate to political campaigns, so we assume you’ll need to raise more money for your race than the last competitive cycle. It’s also important to consider what type of voter contact you think you’ll need to do to win – and what they cost. If you want to go on broadcast TV, you’ll have to raise a lot more money than if you only need to send a mail piece to 10,000 households.

How much can you raise?
It’s important for candidates to do a personal assessment and get a sense of your network. Take everyone from your contact lists – social media connections, people in your phone, email contacts, LinkedIN, people you went to school with, people who attended your graduation or wedding, etc. and assign a dollar figure next to each name. Of course, during a campaign you’ll be reaching out to new supporters (standard Democratic donors, labor unions, PACs, etc.), but the first money will have to come from within your own network. If you’re running for local office, this number will need to be anywhere from 20%-35% your overall budget. Some places have public financing, vouchers, matching money or other ways to finance races that need to be taken into account.

These questions are particularly important for younger candidates. Many of us don’t yet have decades long resumes and deep personal networks to fall back on. But knowing who you are, what values you stand for and the commitment to raise money, will set a candidate of any age up for success.

CN4 Partners was awarded a coveted Reed Award for Best Lit Piece by Campaigns and Elections Magazine. The award-winning piece, “Rod Sock,” was created on behalf of our client, Rod Dembowski for King County Council.

The innovative piece highlights Councilmember Dembowski’s humble upbringing and tells the story of how he used to sell socks at the swap meet with his father on the weekends to help his family make ends meet, and was a die-cut piece in the shape of a sock.

The awards are named for Campaigns & Elections founder Stanley Foster Reed and were created to recognize the best of the political industry.  We were also a finalist for our piece, I love Tacoma, which was an independent expenditure for now Tacoma Mayor Victoria Woodards. Our client for that program was a progressive coalition that included FUSE Votes, SEIU 1199NW, UFCW 367 and Puget Sound Energy.  

Working in the business, we see a lot of great campaigns – and even more bad ones. Asking around to friends on both sides of the aisle, we’ve come up with some of the top mistakes political campaigns make … so you can avoid them on your campaign.

Spreading your media dollars too thin

This is a common mistake: Campaigns will send out one direct mail piece, take out a few newspaper ads, run a radio ad and spend some money on social media. They do this in the belief that the more outlets they try, the better their chances of reaching the correct audience. Wrong! There are two principles of advertising – reach (how many people see your ad) and frequency (how often they see it). A successful ad campaign has both. Advertisers price their offerings based on reach, and you have to spend enough to obtain frequency. If you get offered “a really good deal” – it’s because nobody is seeing your ad, or it’s on a platform like the Internet that requires more frequency than others.

One mail piece is not an advertising campaign! We strongly that recommend campaigns achieve coverage using one channel before adding in a second, supplemental channel. For smaller campaigns, you may only have bandwidth for one channel – and for small campaigns, that most likely will be direct mail.

Running on the issues

Of course issues play a part in campaigns. However, campaigns aren’t only about issues – you want to connect the candidate’s qualities and experience to the voters’ needs. Think of issues like ornaments on a Christmas tree. They make the tree more festive, but no matter how many ornaments you have, without the tree, you have nothing to hang them on. The candidate is the tree; the issues can only be put on the tree after you establish who the candidate is and why he or she is running – and connect the candidate to the voters.

So, on your campaign, don’t lead with your 10-point plan. Lead with a story that introduces the candidate to the voters in a relatable way.

Storytelling has been used by human beings for millennia to convey values. For some great reading on this, try “Don’t Think of an Elephant” by Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff or “The Political Brain” by Emory University psychologist Drew Westen.

Being unwilling to do (enough) call time

If you want to run for office, you have to raise money. The most efficient way to raise money is to call donors on the phone. If you’re not willing to do that, don’t run for office.

How much call time is enough? Simply track how much you’re raising an hour on average, and then align it with your budget. Make a weekly goal that fits what you need to raise on your campaign.

Worrying too much about attacks that don’t sway your voters anyhow

For example, if you’re a liberal Democrat running in Seattle, don’t worry too much if the Seattle Times faults you for wanting to raise taxes. Your voters don’t care! Another example: In all the polling I’ve ever seen, few voters care about residency issues, so don’t worry about yours.

Not having/following a written plan and budget

Believe it or not, we’ve walked into campaigns that have raised and spent $1 million without having a budget – or anything to show for the spend. Money management is key to winning elections. Don’t spend your budget on unnecessary stuff, like a band at your kickoff, knickknacks with your logo on them, T-shirts, balloons, etc. If direct voter contact is the top priority of your campaign – and it should be! – make sure that’s reflected in your budget.

Thinking that you can change the electorate

It’s possible to change the electorate – just ask Barack Obama or George W. Bush. Both of them successfully attracted new voters to turn out and vote, which was integral to their electoral successes.

However, they were running successful, well-funded campaigns that had strong messages, good communications and strong ground games. If you’re running an underfunded campaign for city council with no media and no volunteers, you’re going to have drastically different results.

Thinking your campaign for state house is going to reinvent how elections are won

We see this most often with candidates who struggle with fundraising, but it’s not limited to them. Deciding you’re going to win your election by putting all your money into billboards, yard signs or your latest campaign flavor of the month is crazy. Also, you’re not Barack Obama/Donald Trump/Howard Dean. Just because they raised a ton of money online doesn’t mean you don’t have to do your call time.

Focusing too much on yard signs

We’ve worked on campaigns from president to governor to Congress to state legislature where more time and energy has been wasted on one thing over all others – yard signs. The myth that yard signs win elections has been perpetuated throughout the grassroots wings of both parties.

Your campaigns need to have some yard signs, if only because your supporters will give your campaign and candidate too much grief if you don’t. And, contrary to popular belief, testing shows the signs do have a very small effect on boosting name ID.

Wasting time

There are three variables in any campaign: people, time and money. Of these, time is the most important, as you can’t make any more of it. It’s the only fixed variable in your campaign. The candidate must be focused on one of two things: raising money and talking to voters. Anything beyond those two activities MUST be outsourced to other people.

Not spending enough time laying the groundwork for your campaign

If you want to run for office, don’t get in on the last day of filing and announce your availability to the world. The best candidates lay their groundwork months and even years ahead of time by being involved in local organizations; getting to know political players; conducting research on themselves, their voting records and what’s available online; and having a well-established fundraising base. Many campaigns are won before they even start!

Great photos win votes. We can’t emphasize enough how a good photoshoot helps your entire campaign. We believe it is one of the best investments you can make. We love working with campaigns that have great images to choose from – that’s why we put together the CN4 Photo Guide.  Share with your team and if you have any questions don’t hesitate to contact us.

Click here to download the CN4 Photo Guide.

2016 spurred resistance and in 2017 we harnessed that energy into some terrific wins. The energy of the resistance and the passion that is coming from those who haven’t participated this deep before is something special.

As political consultants, one of our jobs is to help inform potential candidates how to start a campaign. We try to be as comprehensive as possible in these meetings and conference calls but we can’t meet with everybody who is thinking about running for office. But we also don’t think you need to meet with us to begin your campaign’s journey. We developed a Campaign Quick Start Guide for the National Women’s Political Caucus of Washington’s candidate training that helps you think about your message, the office you seek, who should be on your campaign team, and a little of the nuts-and-bolts of a campaign’s infrastructure.

Click here to check out our CN4 Quick Start Guide.

It is all about timing. Direct mail is one of the most effective tools in a campaigns box when it comes to getting the message out to voters but we know the stories of mailboxes stuffed to the gourd. Are most voters going to read all of that?

CN4 Partners prides ourselves on always asking if we are providing the best strategies to our clients. We are always innovating, testing and researching our methods that will help you and your organization win. We have done extensive testing of early mail programs that show, in certain situations of overcrowded mail boxes, can be extremely effective.

In battleground districts in Washington and Colorado we were able to drive voters from our opponents using a clear and informative messaging framework. We were also able to show that our mail recall was higher than either phone or digital media.

Contact us today to see how an early mail program can help you win.

CN4 Partners strives to create the best and most effective political media. We are ultimately judged by our clients and by the voters in those races but we find it important to receive peer feedback. The American Association of Political Consultants (the leading trade group for our industry) awards the “Pollies” at their yearly conference for best political campaign strategy and media – they are basically the Oscars of political consultants.

Our firm has received 22 Pollie Awards and this year we came back with a WIN for best direct mail piece for local initiative for “200 Year Tax”