Michael Crowley notes that when Americans Elect announced last summer that “it was pouring millions into placing a third-party presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states, the political world snapped to attention.”

But the group now “is looking more like the Zune than the iPod…. It’s possible that Americans Elect won’t nominate a single candidate. That might say more about this well-intentioned effort’s shortcomings than it does about the durability of our two-party system.”

“Had the GOP primaries ended differently, Americans Elect might have taken off. A year ago it did not seem totally implausible that, say, Michele Bachmann would win the GOP nomination, leaving a wide gap between Tea Party absolutism and Obama’s center-left pragmatism. Instead, Republicans wound up with a center-right pragmatist in Romney. Still, you can’t write off a well-funded outfit with national ballot access. Especially when the public is in an angry mood.”

This is especially true as there’s no such thing as a truly independent voter – approximately 90-95% of voters are predisposed to vote for one party or the other or vote along single-issue lines.

Via Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire.

National Journal writes:

If recent electoral and population trends hold, Democrats need only wait a few presidential election cycles until they begin every White House contest as clear, eventually even overwhelming, favorites.
…

Current Census Bureau estimates say the nation’s population will grow by about 61 million people over the next 18 years, to 373 million. That growth will come largely among minorities; the bureau believes the nation’s Hispanic population will grow by 63 percent, the number of African-Americans will increase by 27 percent, and the Asian-American population will increase by 55 percent. At the same time, the number of whites in America will rise by only 4 percent. Those numbers point to a much more diverse nation: Today, about 64 percent of the population is white. By 2030, that figure is predicted to shrink to 56 percent.

That’s frightening news for Republicans, a party that has had little success winning over minority voters in recent years. In a presidential year, an 8-point drop in the percentage of white voters is enough to move mountains—or at least purple states.

…

The GOP has a decade or more to change those numbers and its relationships with minority communities. Republicans will ignore strategists and leaders like Ayres, Rove, and Bush at their own peril.

To be sure, there are kinks to work out: donations from corporate accounts on federal candidates is a no-no; the delay in sending the donation to the candidates is a major issue if you’re in the last 30 days of a race.

Essentially – lots of kinks to work out, but promising in concept.

Campaign Insider reports:

Firms are putting pressure on the Federal Election Commission to give its blessing to text-message campaign contributions. For those in the Beltway last cycle, you may remember that “text-to-donate” was the hot snake oil of 2010. Several companies and consultants tried to ride the buzz of the successful Haiti text-donation efforts.

Text-message contributions aren’t allowed under federal law. But there are reports that firms are upping the pressure on the FEC to make a change.

…

The Verizons & AT&Ts of the world aren’t soft hearted when politics is involved. Maryland and California have allowed text-message contributions for state-level candidates. Maryland hasn’t held a statewide race since it changed its rules and in California, party officials have complained that cell providers haven’t offered the service.

Other problems around collecting political donation via a text message include:

• The donations are not forwarded to the campaign until well after the billing cycle. This is no good if a campaign needs their funds right away to buy ads or support GOTV efforts.
• The donations are only tagged with the donor’s cell number. Not their name, address, occupation and employer as required by the FEC. Telecommunications companies are going to have to change their policy and provide far more information about donors to make the FEC happy.

Political fundraisers have ways to get around these problems such having donors send a text and then having a phone bank call the prospect back for her donor and credit card info.

Another technique is to have donors send a text and then they would receive a link to a donation page via text. The benefits of these two strategies is that the campaign would have phone numbers of prospective donors. The down side is that the campaign doesn’t receive a corresponding name for the prospect who responded to the call-to-action.

Needless to say, neither of these strategies notched any significant fundraising success. One large Midwestern Republican state party tried something similar at its big annual fundraiser banquet. They hired a vendor who promised them fundraising riches. At the event a text-to-donate number was flashed on massive screens around the event. Phone bank operators were poised to call donors back to process their donation. When the event was over, a grand total of $143 was collected.

[Nixon's] retirement from politics didn’t stick, but the lesson about the conservatives and their media finally did. Having cast out the mainstream press, Nixon concentrated his attention on conservative alternatives.

Nixon began courting right-wing journalists and writers in August 1966, when he held his own off-the-record meeting with members of conservative media and organizations at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington. Like the Romney meeting, the secret rendezvous quickly went public. A front-page story in The Washington Post divulged all the details, including Nixon’s prediction that conservatism would be “politically respectable” by the next election. And while Nixon didn’t spell out his intentions for 1968, one attendee told the paper: “Lines of communication were opened that should be helpful later on.”

Having made his intentions known, Nixon dialed up the charm. In January 1967 he invited Buckley, Bill Rusher (publisher of National Review), and other members of the conservative media to his sprawling Fifth Avenue apartment. There he exhibited his virtuosic command of foreign and domestic policy. Rusher remained unmoved — Rusher would always remain unmoved when it came to Nixon — but Buckley? There was no surer way to Buckley’s heart than a vigorous display of intellect and insight. As Neal Freeman, Buckley’s personal aide, recalled: “I knew when we went down the elevator, early in the evening, that Bill Buckley was going to find some reason to support Richard Nixon.” True, Nixon was no conservative, but the heart wants what it wants. And a smart, experienced, electable Republican was exactly what Buckley wanted in a 1968 candidate. More than a year before the election, he was recommending Nixon as the “wisest Republican choice.”

…

Here Nixon is again a valuable guide. Richard Nixon never claimed to be a movement conservative, just someone who would attend to the right’s political desires. Like Nixon, Romney is a pragmatist who changes his views to match the political mood. From the perspective of the right, what Romney must now demonstrate is his belief that the current mood is fundamentally conservative, and that he will do what he must to keep the right on board. True, it’s not particularly inspiring. It’s practical and calculating, just like Nixon — who, remember, won a close election in 1968, won re-election in a historic landslide and built a coalition that sustained the Republican Party for 40 years.

When it comes to the personal characteristics Americans ascribe to each candidate in the race for President, the usual roles are reversed.

Even after nearly three and a half years as President, Obama is rated as experienced by 20%, not experienced by 33% (net -13).  By comparison, for presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney, 36% rate him experienced, 11% not experienced (net +25), for an overall net Romney advantage of 38 points.

Of a dozen positive personal characteristics tested, Romney outscores Obama by large margins on being experienced (a net Romney advantage of 38 points), being religious (net Romney advantage of 45 points), and being patriotic (net Romney advantage of 16 points).  Romney also edges Obama on being effective (net Romney advantage of 7 points).

In a role reversal, while Romney the challenger outpoints Obama the incumbent on being experienced and even effective, the incumbent outpoints the challenger on being inspiring (a net Obama advantage of 31 points) and exciting (net Obama advantage of 21 points).   Obama also edges Romney on being intelligent (net Obama advantage of 17 points), sincere (16 points), honest (15 points), bold (13 points), strong (9 points) and steady (7 points).

Where gay marriage is concerned I once felt that, yes, marriage is for men and women. Then I looked at why? Being that I’m largely agnostic I don’t attribute a spiritual association with marriage strictly between a man or woman, though my somewhat religious upbringing certainly played a major role in it. But I began examining the issue of gay marriage when I began to examine closer the existence of a Supreme Being.

The propagation of the species is certainly a worthy argument but as medical care has improved through the centuries, and especially in the last 50 years,  as has the quality and availability of child care.

Where family stability is concerned – certainly an important aspect that should be encouraged and facilitated through responsible public policy – the evidence of divorce and separation rates among gay and lesbian couples are a mixed bag, with some research indicating higher rates while others demonstrate lower rates.

In the end, I’m willing to roll the dice and say  it’s closer to the divorce rates of straight-couples. Far be it from me to cast stones as those who divorce.

With all this stated, Jan van Lohuizen, George W. Bush’s 2004 pollster has released a memo – below – that shows the changing attitudes among voters with suggested talking-points.

To this I would add “it’s a moral imperative that public policy be used to promote stable and loving homes for families and to protect all individual rights.”

I am glad to see that demonizing gays has become taboo with even key Republicans coming out of the closet – former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman and Rick Perry and Rick Scott’s pollster Tony Fabrizio just to name two.

Even Rush Limbaugh, long a supporter of civil unions and on his fourth traditional marriage, simply uses gays as a method of electoral motivation for the extreme right, saying, ”Shep, where has the issue won?” Where has the issue been victorious, Shep, outside your house? Where has the issue won an election? What state? Tell me where it’s happened.”

Interestingly, Mehlman in March 2012 apologized for using the issue of gay marriage as a way to get the base to vote; Fabrizio was against using the issue of gay marriage as a way for Rick Perry to garner votes in Iowa in 2012.

Essentially, it’s time to toe the conservative mantra and truly guard individual rights and judge people as individuals as opposed to group identity when it strictly suits our electoral needs.

Memorandum

From:    Jan R. van Lohuizen
Date:     05/11/12
Re:        Same Sex Marriage

Background:    in view of this week’s news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage:

1. Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down.   A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year.  Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support  accelerated to 5% a year.  The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).

2. The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups.   While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time.  The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.

3. Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians.  These include majority Republican support for:
1. Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation
2. Protections against bullying and harassment
3. Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
4. Right to visit partners in hospitals
5. Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
6. Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).

Recommendation:        A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:

“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law.  People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians  should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.

Other thoughts / Q&A:

Follow up to questions about affirmative action:   “This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.”

Why public attitudes might be changing:  “As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace.   This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.” 

Conservative fundamentals:       “As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone.  This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.  

We used to argue strongly that 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. was the core zone. And of course, if your audience is national in scope, then 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. pacific gets you in that core zone in all four time zones. Outside of that zone, open rates will tend to drop.

We continue to stick to that guideline. However, there’s been a flattening out of open rates in the last year or so. We’re seeing open rates descend softly into the early evening, rather than falling off a cliff at 5 p.m. That’s likely the impact of better mobile email devices – iPhone, Android, tablets – that make it more likely that folks are checking email on the couch.

So, that core zone is a bit less critical than before. That said, in most cases, if you’re trying to get someone to do more than read an email – make a donation, fill out a form – you probably want to hit them while they’re at a desk, rather on a mobile device on the couch.

Personally I like to time mine right between 6 AM and 8 AM so that people are at their desk checking their email or reading their smart phone.

As with most all campaign communication, testing is key.

Interesting take considering public now feels the parties are too polarized.

Ron Brownstein: “In the Washington of the early 1960s that Robert Caro so vividly recreates in his latest volume on Lyndon Johnson, political scientists’ greatest concern was not too much difference between the two parties but too little. It’s worth recalling the flaws — and advantages — of that era as we confront a political order whose greatest challenge is very much the opposite: too much distance between the parties.”

“The most common complaint about this period’s politics was that it promoted too much consensus. Political analysts argued that the fractures in each party denied Americans a clear choice in elections and made it impossible for either side to implement ‘coherent programs,’ as a celebrated 1950 commission lamented.”

Via the Political Wire.

1. The use of nonprofessional voice talent: This may save a few hundred bucks in production costs, but it’s the one thing that will hurt your ad the most.
2. Cramming too many words into a 30 second ad
3. Featuring a weak or awkward handshake
4. Same ole same ole: Using the same shot of the candidate working at their desk, meeting voters at the diner, or walking with a crowd of supporters.
5. The use of unnatural poses or situations featuring the candidate
6. Too much text on the screen
7. Having a microphone visible on the candidate’s shirt, tie or blouse
8. A candidate who wears the same outfit in every shot
9. Employing overly-scripted man on the street ads
10. A candidate who just doesn’t sound good on camera.

In Gray Matter, Leonard Mlodinow writes that eyes of a certain curvature and a slight widow’s peak can help win an election.

But recent research suggests that we may need to adopt a more cynical attitude. It turns out that a candidate’s appearance — not beauty, but a look of competence — can generate a far greater vote swing than we previously thought. Furthermore, this effect is not only powerful but also subliminal. Few of us believe that appearance determines our vote, yet for a significant number of us, it may.

Full story.