Prop 8: Questions about what went wrong, so we can fix it for next time

Question 17 (8.00 / 1)

Who thought it was a good idea not to attack each "Yes on 8" ad with an equal number of "No on 8" ads?

---

by: Billt314 @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 21:29:02 PM UTC

For now as the evaluation process goes forward (6.50 / 2)

know that there is 48+% of the state that has your back. We will do everything we can to get this overturned and prevent it in the future.

Hugs to all that are feeling this empty grief today.

---

by: sallycat @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 21:51:31 PM UTC

Disconnect (0.00 / 0)

Obama wins by 24 points and prop 8 is approved, just goes to show people hate George Bush but don't embrace a progressive social agenda.

---

by: sean @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 21:59:55 PM UTC

Wrong, wrong, wrong. (7.40 / 5)

That does not explain why Prop 4 failed by about the same margin as Prop 8 passed.  There was not a shortage of progressive voters.  The No on 8 campaign simply did not effectively reach those voters.

49 percent turn out in SF county?!?!?  55 percent in Alameda County?!?  Disgraceful.  

The lack of an effective ground game was an unmitigated disaster and I hold those at the top responsible.

---

by: Be_Devine @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 22:26:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right (0.00 / 0)

Exactly.

Disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign. These opinions are my own and are not necessarily those of my employer.  

---

by: Eden James @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 23:01:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

49% turnout in San Francisco (0.00 / 0)

in this election is astonishing.

What the ****, people?!

---

by: aphrael @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 05:41:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong (8.00 / 3)

Obama wins by 24 points and prop 8 is approved, just goes to show people hate George Bush but don't embrace a progressive social agenda.

Actually, Californians do embrace a progressive social agenda. The failure is with the message, not the people.

Californians need to hear a strong campaign message that helps them vote in a way that is consistent with their core values (fairness, equality, non-discrimination).

By asking the questions above, I think Julia provides ample evidence that the campaign failed to maximize the opportunity to convert Obama voters to "No" voters at the polls -- to convince Californians to vote their actual values, instead of their fears.

Disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign. These opinions are my own and are not necessarily those of my employer.  

---

by: Eden James @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 22:36:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please Explain Prop 2 (8.00 / 3)

I believe your hypothesis fails there as well.

---

by: jsw @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 23:06:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

good list Juls (0.00 / 0)

Related to #12, I'd really like to see a state law banning churches as polling place sites.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 22:32:48 PM UTC

Churches (8.00 / 1)

Yes, we absolutely need a law that requires that all elections be held in secular buildings.  

Brian and I were asked to stand in front of Trinity Lutheran Church in Walnut Creek.  The church ran a pre-school that you had to pass to get to the voter check-in desk.  The church-run pre-school thought it would be a good idea to have the children paint a huge sign that said "Vote Yes on 8."

There is something seriously wrong with this picture and we need to fix it.

And as for Julia's point #12 - Brian and I spent 4 hours in front of the church and I am convinced that we changed exactly zero votes.  We served as a rally cry for those already convinced to vote no and as a lightening rod for those convinced to vote Yes.  We did not have the opportunity to change a single person's mind.  Was this really the best use for hundreds or thousands of volunteers who were willing and able to do just about anything for the campaign?

---

by: Be_Devine @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 22:44:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A rhetorical question, I know, but... (8.00 / 3)

No, it was not the best use of their time, Brian.

The No on 8 campaign was sitting on a grassroots goldmine of volunteers who could have CRANKED the base in San Francisco  and Alameda counties -- and Los Angeles -- with a robust field campaign.

Instead, they directed volunteers to wave signs and to pass out palm cards to voters who had already made up their minds (most, long ago).

It's a tragedy that the consultantocracy in California does not understand the value of a strong field program in base districts. We, of course, all know the self-serving reasons why.

Disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign. These opinions are my own and are not necessarily those of my employer.  

---

by: Eden James @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 23:11:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, it is a tragedy consultants don't get field, but... (0.00 / 0)

it's worse than that, even. They don't trust people, the people. In the end, that's the driving perception among these consultants, in addition to pure, unbridled greed. The former is more important than the latter, I think.

Think about it. They believe in broadcast media to win. That means they believe people are puppets so, as the puppetmasters, they just need to pull the right strings to make people do what they want.

They believe volunteers and low-level staff should just stuff envelopes, answer the phone, make coffee. We're monkeys, in short.

They believe they are the stars, the kingmakers, the Enron-like smartest guys in the room. That means intelligence and information from the field is by definition wrong if it conflicts with what they say.

This problem is endemic in campaigns and reeks of elitism. And it's been dominant in them for the years I've worked in politics. And it is digusting. The No on 8 campaign is the latest example to be disgusted by.

---

by: Sun Tzu @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 23:31:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Basically an advertising campaign (0.00 / 0)

There was definitely a lot of that, but the problem is that the focus groups were telling the campaign things that many of us would find counter-intuitive (e.g., seeing happy couples turns off voters), and relying on a huge cadre of individuals to make counter-intuitive statements would make keeping to the carefully crafted message impossible.  Hence, an adverising campaign with a tightly controlled message.

---

by: VickyK @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 05:25:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Incompetent management (0.00 / 0)

We need to figure out who fucked this campaign up, and how we can fire them.  I think that the competent campaigners this cycle were working on other stuff, except the Mormon ones, but we do need a narrative of how our side got our-oganized in our own backyard.  The gays are supposed to run smarter campaigns, not dumber ones...

I am a healthcare activist for the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association.  We are the nation's largest RN union, the nation's fastest-growing union, and leading advocates for single-payer healthcare.

---

by: California Nurses Shum @ Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 23:17:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree. Neutral polling places for the win! (0.00 / 0)

I agree. Neutral polling places should be a goal for 2010. Elections should be held in neutral buildings. And Be_Devine, have you reported the polling place for violating its impartiality to the contra costa board of elections?

See if there is an ally that could write a bill on this topic.

---

by: mmunson @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 00:20:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That sounds nice, but it ignores the reality (0.00 / 0)

that in some small towns, the church is one of the few buildings that has enough space for a polling place.

I'm talking small towns here. SMALL.

For example, the well-intentioned but extremely stupid Help America Vote Act requires that polling places be handicapped accessible, including that there must be paved parking and paved ramps. Sounds nice. But there are precincts in California that don't have ANY paved streets. Those precincts are now mail-only.

Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

---

by: elfling @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 17:26:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

how does that ignore reality? (8.00 / 1)

I'd take mail-only precincts over polling places in churches any day of the week and twice on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 18:12:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why? (0.00 / 0)

Everyone has the option to vote by mail today.

Why is it important to you that other people not be allowed to vote in person?

I'd be OK with a rule that makes a church a lower choice than other public buildings, but if it works best for a town to use a church, I think it's presumptuous for others to deny it.

Your reality in an urban area is quite different from the reality of people who live 4 hours from the nearest airport in a town with one modular nondescript building that happens to be a church. :-)

Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

---

by: elfling @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 22:14:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

no, it is about principle (0.00 / 0)

And first of all, living in the heart of SF I've voted in a church. I'd be all for the state going Oregon style as it makes a helluva lot of sense, but I don't think there is any reason to vote in a church. Not one.

And I'm a country boy who first voted in an Elk's club in Montana.

So quit with the arguments against me and name a single reason why people should vote in a church.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 23:17:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What about schools? (0.00 / 0)

Doesn't every community at least have an elementary school?  I worked in a rural community in Virginia on Tuesday where they simply had two precincts in an elementary school.

---

by: auron renouille @ Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 00:15:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some responses (0.00 / 0)

...

4)How did they only plan for a max budget of $20 million when they ended up with closer to $40M?  

The amount of money involved had never before been raised by our community for one of our issues, and early in the year, the Obama fundraising and the Migden/Leno race sucked all of the air out of LGBT fundraising.  Early donation requests were met with ringing silence.

5) Why did they not anticipate and better counter the opposition's messaging?  

I don't know.  Did these issues come up in Mass. or with the parental notification campaigns?  That is where we got our pros.

...

7) Who made the decision not to strongly make the argument that Obama opposes 8 to his supporters?  

I think that the campaign was trying very hard to separate itself from a partisan campaign message.  I can only speculate why, but they did actively dissuade people from going to the polls with Obama buttons, etc.  They argued that some McCain supporters might vote our way and we needed every vote.

8) Who decided that not having a true ground game was a path to victory?  

The campaign said from the beginning that there would be a ground game, but the conventional wisdom is that an air game is needed in CA.

9) Who thought that paid phones to voters were more effective than grassroots supporters making calls?  

The campaign originally said that phonecalls were meant to ID supporters for either side as well as undecideds.  They were not meant to be persuasive.

Supporters could do ID calls, or more importantly, give raise money for the air campaign.  

...

11) Who thought it was a good idea to have the only ask of volunteers election weekend (Sat-Mon) to come in for a one hour training?

That is not unusual for a political campaign.

12) Who thought it was a good idea on election day to have the main volunteer ask to stand in front of polling locations, which are mostly churches and schools and pass out cards for a campaign where churches and schools were the main contentious issues?

The thought was to be there when an undecided voter made up their mind...as they entered the polling place.  Churches and schools are the most common polling locations, although not the only ones...there were firehouses, community centers, private garages, etc.

13) Who thought that waving signs brings a significant amount of voters to the polls?

That was never the campaign's approach.  Visibility work was primarily grassroots based, except on election day, when those of the volunteers denied entrance to locations chose to do visibility work instead.

14) Who never came up with a legal strategy to counter people being kicked away from those locations?

There was a strategy -- politely ask and if denied, to either go to where the poll workers wanted us to go or to be relocated by the campaign.  The thought was that if we seemed angry, then we would scare away undecided voters.  We were trying to respond to the opposition's vitriol with calm, reasoned positions.

15) How did the campaign really think that they would have the legal right to stand on church property with No on 8 signs?

If you mean polling places, then because they were being used for a public purpose, they invited the public in.  We were allowed onto some sites, and not others, and it wasn't just about churches.

16) Why was the campaign complacent with just having labor endorsements, instead of getting their advice on how to run a field campaign, use their field resources like phone banks, encourage them to communicate with their members and just generally be a major presence in the campaign?

I don't know about outside the Bay Area, but the ground campaign here would never have happened without the support of the United Democratic Campaign headquarters, labor unions, and progressive churches like the UCC and Unitarians.  They provided the phone banking, locations, and organizational support for the campaign.  

---

by: VickyK @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 23:37:08 PM UTC

a few points (0.00 / 0)

I think that the campaign was trying very hard to separate itself from a partisan campaign message.  I can only speculate why, but they did actively dissuade people from going to the polls with Obama buttons, etc.  They argued that some McCain supporters might vote our way and we needed every vote.

Everyone knew Obama was far more popular in CA that No on 8 and the idea of wasting potential with one in five voters to try and get the 5 Republicans in CA who don't hate was grossly counterproductive.

The campaign said from the beginning that there would be a ground game, but the conventional wisdom is that an air game is needed in CA.

The whole problem at the heart of this conversation is that conventional wisdom in CA is whack (except for the purveyors who are also selling ads on percentage). Much more, it is counterproductive to cling to such outdated strategies as by 2010 the majority of voters are going to have a DVR.

11) Who thought it was a good idea to have the only ask of volunteers election weekend (Sat-Mon) to come in for a one hour training?

That is not unusual for a political campaign.

Name one successful campaign that didn't do field the final weekend in a major race. It is extremely unusual except in conversations on political malpractice.

Visibility work was primarily grassroots based, except on election day, when those of the volunteers denied entrance to locations chose to do visibility work instead.

Field 101 says you only do visibility on election day if every precinct is covered for GOTV.

We were trying to respond to the opposition's vitriol with calm, reasoned positions.

Which did a fabulous job of telegraphing to voters that only one side has passion and since late voters rarely decide on reasoned positions, but much grants the other side the benefit of emotion.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 00:29:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Following up (0.00 / 0)

I do not speak for the campaign, but I did speak to campaign staff from the top to the bottom.  What I am relating are not my own decisions...I think they made many serious mistakes.

Everyone knew Obama was far more popular in CA that No on 8 and the idea of wasting potential with one in five voters to try and get the 5 Republicans in CA who don't hate was grossly counterproductive.

I said that I could only speculate about why, and gave the official position.  I personally don't believe this had anything to do with not offending Republicans.

Name one successful campaign that didn't do field the final weekend in a major race. It is extremely unusual except in conversations on political malpractice.

I misread the question...in passing I thought it was about the training, not the absence thereof.  Also, as noted below, GOTV was never part of the plan, so there wasn't anything else to do with them.

Field 101 says you only do visibility on election day if every precinct is covered for GOTV.

First off, there was no GOTV program, just polling place electioneering, unless something was going on that I never heard about.  This makes sense, because the campaign ways always focused on mass persuasion, not turning out the base.  

GOTV requires IDing supportive voters, recruiting local volunteers, and mobilizing them at election time, and there was never any infrastructure to do that on a statewide level.

The field teams were supposed to work the precincts with palm cards.  Polling places were supposed to be scouted to determine if there were places where the field volunteers could approach the voters beyond 100 feet.  That didn't happen adequately in my hub.  As a result, some of the identified polling places were off limits and we couldn't redeploy all of them, so they wound up doing visibility instead.

---

by: VickyK @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 05:14:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which is just shocking and indefensible (0.00 / 0)

SF had a 49% turnout. Just amazing. Even GOTV in SF might have helped turn the tide. A statewide GOTV program would likely have won it for us.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 05:43:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

it was 58%. check sfgov.org/elections (0.00 / 0)

someone keeps spreading that factoid but it's not true.  

---

by: chiefscribe @ Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 18:07:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Look at the date on my comment (0.00 / 0)

49% was the figure we had on Wednesday. Since then more ballots have been counted and SF's turnout numbers have indeed risen.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 18:11:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

About 130,000 ballots uncounted as of (0.00 / 0)

Nov 5th.  That would make close to 80% turnout, assumming some aren't invalidated (a fraction of those are provisional)

---

by: socalrefugee @ Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 00:16:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Visibility DOES NOT work for GOTV. (0.00 / 0)

There have been a number of studies on this. Read GOTV by Green and Gerber and look at some of the studies by George Washington University.  You HAVE to ID supporters and get them to the polls, particularly on this kind of issue.  That's what the opposition was doing.

A $40 million budget and no real field program is a terrible idea.  I don't know who told the campaign that you have to do only media buys, but we've been losing battles in California for years on that strategy.

Yes, the state is huge, but field offices are relatively cheap.  In many areas you can find a supporter to rent you an office for almost nothing, or even donate it outright. You can hire two good, full-time field organizers to staff an office for two months for about $10K.   The main thing you pay for is phones.   Ten offices around the state would have been $150K, max.   Then hire two or three regional campaign coordinators.   You're talking perhaps $200K with overhead.  Add another $50K for buying a decent statewide voter database, getting some consulting on targeting, and hiring some good data folks.

You could also have hired some campus organizers, say another ten at $2K each -- that's $20K, say $30K with a supervisor and overhead.

For $250K you have a reasonably strong field program.   Pennies compared to the money that was raised and spent.

---

by: djardin @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 18:18:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OH MY GOD, OH MY GOD, OH MY GOD!!! (8.00 / 1)

First off, there was no GOTV program, just polling place electioneering, unless something was going on that I never heard about. This makes sense, because the campaign ways always focused on mass persuasion, not turning out the base.

Reading this, I am screaming at my monitor, pulling out my hair, and putting a fist through the wall. 

Who in their right mind would think that we should "focus on mass persuasion, not turning out the base."  First, we could have and should have focused on both.  Mass persuasion works early on, not on election day.  You only need 72 hours to effectively turn out the base.  If they were still focusing on "mass persuasion" on Monday and Tuesday over GOTV, they were idiots.  Second, ignoring the base causes things like a 49 percent turn out in San Francisco county and a 55 percent turnout in Alameda County.  Their design worked. 

This statement is astonishing.  I knew those running the campaign screwed up, but I never knew that they did so with malice aforethought.  I really did not think it could be this bad.

---

by: Be_Devine @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 19:11:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Was turnout really that dismal? (0.00 / 0)

We had 82% in Los Angeles County, which tracks to the numbers I was seeing in Virginia...

Is there a resource for finding turnout in California counties?

---

by: auron renouille @ Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 00:17:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Check these sites... (0.00 / 0)

This gives you the current election: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns...

And you can find previous elections via PDF here: http://www.sos.ca.gov/election...

Disclosure: I work for Netroots Nation. These opinions are my own and are not necessarily those of my employer

---

by: raven @ Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:26:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm right there (0.00 / 0)

But it really wasn't with malice aforethought.  Just incompetence.

We did better in 1978 that this week....


I am a healthcare activist for the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association.  We are the nation's largest RN union, the nation's fastest-growing union, and leading advocates for single-payer healthcare.

---

by: California Nurses Shum @ Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 00:29:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then you have your answer (0.00 / 0)

GOTV was key here. If you just look at what turn out was in key counties in 2006 vs 2008 the percentage was down when it should have been closer or increased even with increased voter reg. Start doing the math on key counties and you start whittling away that lead for Yes on 8.

And of course if you were doing GOTV and outreach you would have been making the case to groups that voted for 8 and might have changed their minds. And that could have made the difference.

Serious political malpractice on so many levels as described.

Disclosure: I work for Netroots Nation. These opinions are my own and are not necessarily those of my employer

---

by: raven @ Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:25:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can I add (0.00 / 0)

Who determined that people of color, particularly Blacks and Latinos, who were going to turn out in record numbers and who we know need persuasion on this issue, didn't need any outreach?

Politics is the strong and slow boring of hard boards.

---

by: Jenifer Fernandez Ancona @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 05:13:01 AM UTC

Ignoring huge pieces of the state (0.00 / 0)

I hope that political strategists have finally learned that you don't ignore red states and red counties anymore.
Looks like the No on 8 leadership forgot that there were potential voters in each city and town of California.
There were people willing to volunteer in every community in the state.  I called and emailed a number of times to offer my time, but I live in a suburban, conservative area that they wrote off early in the campaign.  Instead, I was contacted constantly for a financial contribution (something I'm not in a position to give).  I was directed to drive 30 miles each way to the nearest phone bank.  I went once, but decided that the hourlong mandatory training, multi-page script, and list of urban gay voters (who were all voting No and mostly had been contacted before) wasn't worth my time commitment.
So I tried to set up a phone bank with local progressive organizations here where I live.  The No on 8 folks never got back to me.
I feel like the campaign concentrated solely on turning out their base and not finding opposition in suburbs, small towns, and rural areas.  Their focus was on raising dollars in SF, LA, and SD to run TV ads.
When supporters (on our side) began to set up growing rallies in "conservative areas" a few WEEKS ago, I took 3 friends.  We all signed up to help more.  All we received were email solicitations for money.  And 2 of us (of the 4) got an email asking us to do the polling place thing election day.  Training would take place on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday afternoon (during the work day).  Did I mention that the email wasn't sent until Sunday NIGHT?  And the required training was an hour away from us.
So for next time, include a volunteer/ground component in your campaign - from the outset, not as an afterthought!
And recognize that equality supporters exist in Imperial County and Fresno and Orange County, not just the Bay Area, West Hollywood, and Hillcrest!

---

by: Colorin @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 05:41:32 AM UTC

this is generally true with progressive/dem politics in CA (0.00 / 0)

a quick look at the map for prop 4 reveals that there are indeed fertile ground in "red" california that might have worked out better for no on 8 had they acknowledged that they even existed east of the coastal range.

---

by: wu ming @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 16:19:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We need to take a lesson from the Obama campaign (0.00 / 0)

They had a website that had a social networking component that allowed volunteers in a particular area to post events and connect with one another.

It was some of the only organizing that we had in the initial months of the campaign in California, but it allowed groups to form and start doing outreach.   These groups then became the nucleus of the campaign.

Even if you don't have the money for that kind of technology, you can do something similar with regional Yahoo! groups.  That's what the Kerry campaign did in 2004.

Internet organizing is key to modern campaign management.

---

by: djardin @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 18:29:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You may not like to hear this... (0.00 / 0)

but we need rational arguments, not emotional ones.  You had asked previously:

But Bruin Kid, how could you look me or Brian in the face and tell me we should not be able to marry the one we love?

It is as simple as that.

But that's the problem.  A whole lot of Californians were willing to do just that.  If we are changing the definition of marriage to be between two people, then it must be argued why that must be the correct case, and why other cases are wrong.

If we have that argument at hand, then we won't be arguing from a defensive standpoint, which seemed like what we were doing with Prop. 8.

---

by: BruinKid @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 06:08:06 AM UTC

Sorry, BruinKid, but that's unadulterated crap (8.00 / 1)

There are NO rational arguments for preventing gay people from marrying.  Every single argument either boils down to a lie, or "Gays are yucky (my God says so in four verses out of tens of thousands), therefore gays should be denied equal protection under the civil law.

Well, I think that religious people who think their God is opposed to equality under the law are yucky.  But I don't try to deny them equal rights under the law.

You came around time after time in comments here in awe of some false argument, asking for "help" in debunking it rationally.  Which people here did EVERY single time.  

And after all that, you have the stones to tell us that there were no rational arguments offered up?  After every single argument offered by the anti-justice side was either a debunkable lie, flat out fear-mongering, "tradition/God says it has to be this way, so I want the gummint to enforce my prejudices", or all three?

You're not a "we" if you're taking this position after all of your concern trolling was so patiently and thoroughly answered.  You may not be a them, but if you pretend that all of the rational arguments that have been provided to you don't exist, you're not a "we".

---

by: jsw @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 17:18:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Excellent list of questions, Julia. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Meteor Blades @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 07:46:37 AM UTC

I want to echo the comment (5.00 / 1)

about electioneering exactly 100' from the polling places.

A friend of mine mentioned that her group carefully measured the 100' (and I guess from the actual voting booths rather than the door?) and she mentioned grimly how much the had to defend themselves against the multiple complaints from voters that they were too close.

That's not how you persuade people that gays are nonthreatening and that they deserve equal rights.

I really want to see more outreach to people of color. When I saw that 8 was passing in Los Angeles County, that's when I knew we were cooked. There's no reason it should have passed there with the right message.

What we need is for every Yes on 8 voter to have an encounter like I did, with a gay parent dropping off her child on the way to work, in tears the morning after because the people voted to annul her marriage.

Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

---

by: elfling @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 17:35:53 PM UTC

Offense, not defense (0.00 / 0)

One of the biggest things I'm hoping to see us do differently next time is to go on the offense early, not the defense late.

Anyone know why we didn't go on the air with religious messages like "Christ loves everyone" and "Leave the judgement to God, not man" - if we went to them, first, and instead of saying "equality to all" (which is easy to interpret in many different ways) ask "What would jesus do?" The answer is, of course, he'd give them love and let them make their own choices.

That's one of several things I think we could do in the next campaign, mirroring Obama's strategy of offense, not defense. Others include direct images of how people they know and care about are denied rights, access to Emergency rooms, access to parental rights, loss of inheritance. Show destitute men in houses that are being foreclosed because they couldn't inherit the money their partner raised for them. Show women with children pulled out of their hands because they're not the legal parent of a child they've raised from birth. Show sad people in hospital rooms with their partners trapped outside due to inequalities. Show the impact, that will change minds.  

---

by: wendamus @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 20:19:16 PM UTC