http://campaignhottips.com/?p=25

There’s an old study done by UCLA that found 55% of what you communicate is done visually. In other words, more than half of what you communicate to people comes from what they see, NOT the words you use or how you use those words (i.e. volume, rate, pitch, tone). There are a number of additional studies that say we make 80-150 judgments about a person in the first 15 seconds we see them (so much for “don’t judge a book by its cover”).

What’s this mean to you? How you dress on the campaign trail and in your campaign photos is more important you think.

While doing some reading yesterday, I ran across an article that I believe illustrates this point. The Church Report just released its annual list of the “50 Most Influential Churches in America.”

The list includes a photo of the pastor from each church on the list. I think it’s safe to assume those photos are intentional. They were probably either 1) given to CR by the church or 2) taken by CR from an official church website.

Keeping in mind that 55% of what we communicate is visual, here are a few things that really jumped out at me:

1. 8 of the top 10 churches used casual (i.e. no tie) photos of their pastor.

2. About half of the formal “suit and tie” photos are taken in a way that made it obvious the photographer/church was trying to make it look less formal.
3. In my opinion, only 4-5 of the 50 photos shout “Pastor” when you look at them.

Forget about denominations for second. And don’t get caught up in the seeker-friendly, seeker-unfriendly debate. Those debates are for another day.

I would encourage you to focus your attention on the fact that ALL the churches on this list are: 1) large; 2) growing; 3) active; and 4) understand marketing. Those would all be pretty good assets for your campaign. Also keep in mind that people who attend church regularly – the people these pastors are preaching to every week – are much, much more likely to vote than people who don’t attend church regularly. In other words, these pastors are reaching a group of people you should be targeting on your campaign and they are doing it, in large part, by moving away from the formal “preacher” image.

In the words of Lon Solomon, whose church is #49 on the list, “So What?” Here are a few tips you can use for your campaign:

1. Take a look at the pictures in ALL you campaign materials. Do they communicate “uptight politician” or “in touch man/woman.” I no longer use the traditional “candidate portrait” photos in our client’s materials. Those pictures scream “POLITICIAN” or “REALTOR”.
2. Think about how you dress on the campaign trail. Yes, there are times you’ll need to wear a suit and tie, but not nearly as often as you might believe. Casual is not a bad thing. Casual dress will make you more approachable and more “real” in the minds of the voters.

Bottom line: Ditch the uppity suit and tie every chance you get.

PS – I know this doesn’t seem to have a lot to do with media – but it really does. The picture in paper or the image on the television is much more important that what the article or the reporter says. Any time you are working with the media focus first on what the picture will be because that’s more important than what the story will be.

Exactly.

A little of both. People who have strong reasons to be alienated from the status quo are much more likely to vote for an alternative party. So, appealing to people who are more likely to support you makes sense. But it should be a larger group than the ones whose votes you are already getting. 9/11 truth fits this bill, along with other issues discussed in comments above. I would agree with Green Ferret, however, that asking for a new investigation is better from the political standpoint than claiming you know the truth is a regime conspiracy.

Unfortunately, sometimes “pushing for the truth” can be a risky thing to do in a campaign because it will make you look like a conspiracy theorist, whether you are one or are not one.

The term has too much of a bad rap. We have been lied into every, or just about every, war the US has been involved in. Why not this one? Is it conspiracy theory to point out that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was faked? McNamara has now admitted it. Is it conspiracy theory to discuss the facts about Pearl Harbor, the Lusitania, the Maine, Germans “bayonetting babies” in WWI, Iraqis “throwing babies out of incubators” in Kuwait, etc?

Was the Manhattan Project a government conspiracy? Well, yes. But nobody now denies that it happened.

Did the CIA conspire to overthrow Castro through various mickey mouse schemes? Did the US secretly provide arms to Khomeini’s Iran in return for hostages? Government conspiracies are a dime a dozen.

I think a mistake a lot of Greens and other third party people make is thinking that if they use rhetoric that offends the establishment (and therefore is usually dismissed by a large portion of the electorate) they are somehow doing the right thing.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

If you calm down your rhetoric and then get more votes or even possibly win, you’ll have more of an effect. Just look at the stories about the Illinois Green Party – they’re apparently very professional and knowledgeable about local issues. And just because they sound reasonable doesn’t mean that they’re not true radicals, or anything ridiculous like that.

Do all of them ignore the unanswered questions of 9/11?

I think one of the key questions is who are you targeting as a candidate – is your goal to appeal to as broad an audience as possible or just a select group of people (maybe that 1% or so that has been consistently voting third party for president in the past few election cycles, or 9/11 truthers in McKinney’s case) who are more likely to support you?

Unfortunately, sometimes “pushing for the truth” can be a risky thing to do in a campaign because it will make you look like a conspiracy theorist, whether you are one or are not one. I think a mistake a lot of Greens and other third party people make is thinking that if they use rhetoric that offends the establishment (and therefore is usually dismissed by a large portion of the electorate) they are somehow doing the right thing. If you calm down your rhetoric and then get more votes or even possibly win, you’ll have more of an effect. Just look at the stories about the Illinois Green Party – they’re apparently very professional and knowledgeable about local issues. And just because they sound reasonable doesn’t mean that they’re not true radicals, or anything ridiculous like that.

Now, I think I might not be saying 100% what I want to say – I’m very tired. But let me just say that I think it’s great that this letter to the editor is at least inspiring a discussion like this.

You’re absolutely right. When Howie Hawkins ran for US Senate against Hillary Clinton in 2006, reinvestigating 9/11 was part of his platform, and it resonated with many of the people I spoke with while gathering signatures. However, the phrase “9/11 truth” has been framed by many people who think they already know what the truth is, without an investigation. They think that George Bush caused 9/11, or the CIA, and that, to them, is 9/11 truth.

McKinney is a great speaker, a very intelligent woman, and an awesome person all around. But when we nominated her, we didn’t want to spend six months complaining about how the media ignores us – we wanted a dynamic candidate with a history of winning elections to go out and spread the Green message far and wide, by any means necessary.
I’m not trying to hate, I know it’s tough. One thing we need to get real good at is taking long, hard looks at campaigns and identifying what we need to do better, without just blaming everyone else (or interpreting constructive criticism as blame).

Exactly correct, except for the last line. It’s in the top 40 of all magazines on all subjects nationally. Granted, not everyone who reads it is a stoner, but I think it would be fair to say that most people who do, are. And granted, not all stoners read it, but I’ve been around plenty who do.

Some of the other people who read it (besides law enforcement) include growers and those who are interested in drug policy from a political angle.

Nobody is going to vote for you if they have never heard of you. Granted that I got incredibly good news coverage. But the length of my hair was simply not an issue.

I just did not manage to reach most voters. Few people today read the daily (let alone weekly) papers. And WWE RAW has a larger viewing audience than the eight news channels COMBINED.

Any opposition candidate simply has to find a way to reach the voting public. The opposition candidate HAS to be resourceful, and I don’t have the answers.

And few stoners read “High Times”.

PEACE

I completely agree. I think candidates certainly can wear suits and present a radical ideology of any stripe (green or otherwise). I also think that radical candidates who choose to dress or otherwise appear unconventional can also have integrity and appeal to a variety of audiences. I think the key is more in the way of their speaking ability and how actively they pursue their target audience(s) more so than appearance.

We definitely should appeal to people who don’t vote, but we can’t rely on them alone. Seriously, the Green platform calls for legal marijuana – does that get millions of stoner votes?

It could. But it certainly does not guarantee it. If the Greens (or Libertarians) run someone who is a well-known legalization activist, they may get more of those votes. If they put the issue front and center, they may get more votes. But neither of those by themselves gets millions of votes; there is a lot more to effective campaigning than agreeing with a potential voting bloc, or even making them the center of your appeals.

A voting bloc – any voting bloc – has to be activated and mobilized. Yes, some stoners are slackers, but many aren’t. You can also point out that the GP is, among other things, pro-peace, pro-LGBT and pro-migrant worker. The LP is too, at least in theory.

None of those voting blocs are stereotyped as amotivated the way potheads are; all these causes, including legal hemp, bring thousands and even millions of people out to the streets for rallies, so the potential voting blocs certainly exist. None of them are being well served by the big box parties.

But, the key is in taking active, well-coordinated steps in reaching out and mobilizing such “politically homeless” potential voting blocs, or prying them loose to even a limited extent from one of the big box parties or the other.

If a Green were elected president, 45 million more people would get healthcare – does that get us 45 million votes from the working poor? Appealing to groups that have been turned off of politics for so long is a tricky process.

Yes, it is. But it’s not impossible. And while I don’t expect it would get you 45 million votes, if it got you even 1% of them, it would triple or quadruple McKinney’s total.

Brian Moore got press also because he was not perceived as a threat.

I think it’s more than that. For instance, he got a lot more press coverage than the candidates of the other Socialist parties in 2008, or the previous presidential candidates of the SPUSA for quite a few election cycles past.

Compare his ballot access situation and the total votes he got to Ralph Nader. Nader was on enough ballots to win, and got over 100 times the votes that Moore got. Yet he did not get much more press coverage, because he was perceived as a threat to the two-party system.

Nader used youtube very effectively. Something McKinney could have also done. His media, ballot access and fund raising operations seemed a lot better run than McKinney’s – or than Nader 2004, for that matter.

When there’s only one candidate calling for a reinvestigation of 9/11, I think it’s entirely reasonable to expect 9/11 truthers to get behind that candidate.

But there wasn’t. Baldwin and, I believe, Nader all did as well, although you are correct that McKinney made it more central to her campaign. And, again, as with the other potential voting blocs mentioned above, issue agreement is not enough. A potential voting bloc has to be motivated and mobilized effectively. I would bet that many – probably most – 9/11 truthers did not even know McKinney’s position.

As well, many of them don’t vote, or consider other issues more important, or vote on a combination of issues, of which 9/11 truth is only one. Same with any of the other groups above. But even of those who would swing their vote on that issue alone, you have to reach them, not just agree with them or talk about their issue.

Steve Kubby is certainly someone who could appeal to marijuana activists. But, his High Times interview did not appear until after the Libertarian nomination was already over, despite my repeated urgings for over a year, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

In hindsight, it’s clear that Cynthia McKinney damaged her appeal, and that of the Green Party, by campaigning on 9/11 truth, without getting a whole lot in return. I still support a reinvestigation of 9/11, but the phrase ‘9/11 truth’ is too tied up with outlandish claims that make us look crazy.

I don’t think pushing for truth was or is detrimental. But the real problem is in what you say next:

I love Cynthia McKinney, but I totally disagreed with her media strategy. Without using the media and the internet, we can’t win, and without winning, we can’t make all the good things that we stand for happen.

Any position that a candidate takes – 9/11 truth, marijuana legalization/ending drug prohibition, migrant rights, gay rights, ending the war and the military-industrial complex, or – to take one where we disagree – single payer health care – or any combination of issues – has to be combined with effective publicity and effective mobilization of voting blocs.

Issues are not the only, or main, part of running political campaigns. This is somthing alternative parties and candidates repeatedly fail to understand.

We definitely should appeal to people who don’t vote, but we can’t rely on them alone. Seriously, the Green platform calls for legal marijuana – does that get millions of stoner votes? If a Green were elected president, 45 million more people would get healthcare – does that get us 45 million votes from the working poor? Appealing to groups that have been turned off of politics for so long is a tricky process.

Brian Moore got press also because he was not perceived as a threat. Compare his ballot access situation and the total votes he got to Ralph Nader. Nader was on enough ballots to win, and got over 100 times the votes that Moore got. Yet he did not get much more press coverage, because he was perceived as a threat to the two-party system.

When there’s only one candidate calling for a reinvestigation of 9/11, I think it’s entirely reasonable to expect 9/11 truthers to get behind that candidate. In hindsight, it’s clear that Cynthia McKinney damaged her appeal, and that of the Green Party, by campaigning on 9/11 truth, without getting a whole lot in return. I still support a reinvestigation of 9/11, but the phrase ’9/11 truth’ is too tied up with outlandish claims that make us look crazy.

I love Cynthia McKinney, but I totally disagreed with her media strategy. Without using the media and the internet, we can’t win, and without winning, we can’t make all the good things that we stand for happen.

The biggest stories from the campaign, in terms of people reached, were probably Fox News’ report on her comments about 5000 bodies dumped in a Louisiana swamp, and Alan Dershowitz’ hatchet job on Cynthia and the Green Party as anti-semites. Standing up for Palestinian human rights should make her a pro-semite, but oh well.

All true. The big box media is a pretty well-known quantity. McKinney knew them well enough from years of dealing with them. She even mentioned consciously avoiding them to some extent, I think.

Contrast that with Socialist Party candidate Brian Moore, who was on the ballot in only a small handful of states, and whose party had not been on in more than a small handful of states in decades. Moore did very well in terms of getting coverage – and even respectful coverage – on major big box media outlets. There was no great secret to it. He had a staffer call them and ask to put him on, repeatedly. As soon as he got one show, the staffer would mention it every time he called other shows. This staffer was not someone who had media connections – he worked from home, had never met any of the people he was talking to, and did not travel with the campaign.

I think that Cynthia McKinney and her campaign were easily capable of doing that, too.
And that’s not to take anything away from her – I seriously considered voting for her, had I voted, even though I disagree with her on most economic issues.

The saddest thing for me was how Cynthia was the only one who gave 9/11 truthers the time of day (and some of them actually make sense, when they call for a new investigation and reparations for the families of victims) yet they did basically nothing for her. I’ve seen their 9/11 truth stickers all over New York City, so where were the McKinney/Clemente stickers? Far as I’m concerned, 9/11 truthers can go join the anti-Masonic party.

I don’t think that is really fair. 9/11 truthers are from all parties, as well as those who reject electoral politics on principle. To expect them all to get behind a single candidate is unrealistic.

Hell, I’m radical, but I want to be an effective radical. Greens should run professional campaigns and show that they’re ready to lead. I wouldn’t deign to tell candidates for office what to do, but I agree with Saul Alinsky: if you need to get a haircut before people will listen to your ideas, then the radical thing to do is to cut your hair.

True. But you also have to consider which people – the millions of Americans who take a person with a conventional politician appearance in a suit with less trust because of that appearance are also a more natural constituency for alternative parties and candidates, if they can be effectively mobilized.

Granted, I could piss and moan about how life isn’t fair, but I agree that Greens should be on guard when they speak publicly, because the media loves to portray us as total wackjobs (which most of us are not, including Cynthia McKinney). The saddest thing for me was how Cynthia was the only one who gave 9/11 truthers the time of day (and some of them actually make sense, when they call for a new investigation and reparations for the families of victims) yet they did basically nothing for her. I’ve seen their 9/11 truth stickers all over New York City, so where were the McKinney/Clemente stickers? Far as I’m concerned, 9/11 truthers can go join the anti-Masonic party.

Hell, I’m radical, but I want to be an effective radical. Greens should run professional campaigns and show that they’re ready to lead. I wouldn’t deign to tell candidates for office what to do, but I agree with Saul Alinsky: if you need to get a haircut before people will listen to your ideas, then the radical thing to do is to cut your hair.

After the Nader supporters (the moderates) left to support him, I found that the Greens were going far left of where I was comfortable, and the McKinney campaign kept coming up with really bizarre statements to go along with their personal agenda of what the Green Party should be. Unfortunately, a big majority of the more vocal Greens went along with their agenda.

The problems J. Beck mentioned are largely why I disassociated myself from the GP, local, state and national…