Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. don't like the No On 8 ads? make your own, and post them on youtube. seriously.

   but in the mean time, please support the No On 8 campaign. before either side was putting ads out, they spent a lot of time and money running focus groups and analysis, because this is a numbers game. if we nudge the right group of people in the right way, we will win.

   Posted by: le_sacre | Oct 10, 2008 9:51:37 AM

   
   

2. I posted a few days ago about donation to the "no on prop 8" campaign. Was feeling overwhelmed by financial pressure and the constant barrage of donation requests in the media (and on sites like this). But my coworker said something that made sense, and reminded me of my obligation to donate money, even a little tiny donation, to help make this world a better place. Sometimes it takes a little help from others to remind us about our responsibilities to one another.

   Guys, bitch all you want on the comments section. Then... get your asses over to the site and give them a donation. Even ten bucks... twenty. If I can afford it, so can you... and this is important.

   Do it. Now.

   And thank you... :-)
   

   Posted by: The Milkman | Oct 10, 2008 9:55:37 AM

   
   

3. I already donated money so can we dispense with the hard sell? Thanks.

   But as with the Democratic party which had to constantly be pushed to make the right choices until people got through to them about elections, there seems to be a problem in the gay community with hearing criticism. Grow up a bit. Realize that your telling me that they focused grouped these ads isn't going to convince me of crap and neither is telling me they need to target. For the most part, I say to that "duh, no? really?"

   The point is they are doing a shitty job. You can spin that as you like. I am wasting my dollars here. The No vote may win, but it won't be because of these ads. It certainly will be because the campaign engaged people they pressume will vote against them.

   Let me give you a practical example of what showing up means- in Indiana - I believe Bush won the state by double digits in 2004. It was never close even in polling prior to the final count. In 2008, Obama has decided to contest the state. He's been polling with what is a statistical tie. Why? Because he showed up.

   I've heard a lot about what people believe will happen with the AA and Latino community- yet I've seen no polling out of the state of Ca about those actual communities. I've seen no ads. I've seen no spokespeople trying to engage them? Is this happening?

   Let's say the argument about race is true- even then, the goal is to reduce your number of loses in those groups while increasing your wins in other groups. Why? because that's how people win. Do you really think candidates win across the board in all states? No- they come of with winning strategies that reduce their loses in states while increasing the numbers in parts of the state where they can win. This makes the difference.

   I really wish gay people had an understanding of this basic idea of how to win at politics rather than going for avoiding reality.

   Posted by: akaison | Oct 10, 2008 10:29:35 AM

   
   

4. I agree with RealityThink that we need to go after hearts, not just heads. The first ad with the sweet old couple was a start. Addressing the lies is a good idea, but Prop 8 isn't winning because of facts and logic -- it's winning because of emotion and fear.

   I would like a see a counter to the ad with the little girl telling her Mom that she learned at school that day that a prince can marry a prince. Have some vignettes in which, for example, a kid comes come crying to her two dads because someone at school said she wasn't part of a "real" family. Or show a kid eating lunch alone because he has two moms and other kids are shunning him. Make this about people's families, friends, neighbors, kids. Pull at heartstrings, and at people's innate sense of fairness. People shut out accusations and counter-accusations of "lying." It's important to point out the lies, but that's not how this battle is going to be won.

   Posted by: Brian | Oct 10, 2008 11:34:20 AM

   
   

5. Running the yes on 8 ads on this site must be some master plan by the Gay Mafia, which I'm sure Towleroad is a member of. They figured they accept the money from these control seeking, freedom taking, un-evolved, socially conservative (need I go on? ), organizations who feel the government should get in the way of who people LOVE.

   Let's keep taking the money, and running their ads. Im sure the majority of the readers here already have their minds made up on such an issue that hits close to home. I just hope the TOWLEROAD is putting that money directly back to NO ON 8.

   Thank you Towleroad for the amazing source of information.

   Im not mad at you for running these ads. It is strange at first, but the after proper digestion, Its a clear scheme to suck up the enemies money ....lol. Or at least I hope thats the case.

   Posted by: LittleBoyHercules | Oct 10, 2008 10:13:49 PM

   
   

6. Akaison:

   frankly, your negativity is pretty tiresome. do you honestly think you, who have (presumably) conducted zero focus groups, hired zero pollsters, spent zero months organizing the ground team, building coalitions, and managing phone banks (and donated, what... $250 perhaps?), have magical understanding for how to win this campaign that never occurred to Equality for All?

   i'm all for being skeptical, but at a certain point you just have to be supportive and express solidarity. or make your own goddamn ads and put them up on youtube!

   this is the most expensive media ad market in the world. not every group can be targeted. if it's known from extensive focus group testing that certain demographics do not contain the numbers of potential swayables, then those groups *must* be abandoned (in the sense of not spending significant money on them that could be spent to reach the logically-dictated targets).

   meanwhile, the last article i saw about the polling results mentioned that No On 8 was organizing rallies in latino neighborhoods. also, a few seconds of research showed that $400k was spent by No On 8 through the PR firm of the california NAACP president.

   so i think you should stop being hypercritical of the television ad campaign, which may discourage potential donors. i for one think that No On 8 is doing a great job, and it's no doubt because people involved at all levels of the campaign are passionate and committed.

   sorry for being ranty.

   Posted by: le_sacre | Oct 11, 2008 2:44:01 AM

   
   

7. Le Sacre:

   Your response could be lifted verbatim from the Democratic response circa mid-1990s- 2004 in response to criticism that the Democratic Party received regarding its electoral strategy for winning votes.

   In a nutshell you are arguing the DLC type leave it to the professional consultants because they know how to win elections. Except, of course, they didn't which is why the Democrats lost multiple cycles.

   Here if the professionals for advocating gay rights knew what they were doing -- the polling wouldn't have went from 55 against to 44 against in less than a month. If you consider it negative to ask people to consider a different strategy, then you don't understand what the word means.

   Oh, and I don't care if you are ranty. I just wish you had something more to say than they know what they are doing when the facts as per the polling suggest they do not. I also don't care whether they are passionate if that passion isn't committed to winning.

   Once again- I would love to read a report about how they are reaching out to every community rather than making assumptions about who they won't get - just to name one example of what is actually a positive suggestion that I've already made multiple times. Instead, they seem to be falling back on what they know rather than pushing the Pro- Prop 8 into going in the defensive. Instead, the No prop 8 seems to be reacting.

   If this cycle with Obama versus McCain hasn't taught you anything- its far better to be on the offense than the defense.
   

   Posted by: akaison | Oct 11, 2008 1:20:00 PM

   
   

8. i think the two most fundamental issues i have with what you have said are:

   1) california is NOT the electoral college. the same strategic principles simply do not apply, since we depend solely on the popular vote for success. also, this is not a movement-building election; this vote is basically the end of the battle.

   2) you're arguing that your criticism is correct because No On 8's non-universal strategy hasn't stemmed a shift in polling results. but look at who was targeted in the Yes On 8 ads. if i'm not mistaken, the two campaigns are battling over the same target group of undecided voters. what evidence do you have to suggest that targeting entirely different groups (who are much more resistant to shifts in opinion) would be money well spent?

   please link to those ads on youtube when you make them!

   Posted by: le_sacre | Oct 11, 2008 5:00:40 PM

   
   

9. Le Sacre

   a) Your first point only reinforces my point that every vote counts. I can't talk to someone who can't understand the purpose of analogy isn't that one is exactly like the other in every detail. This is indeed the popular vote that matters- which is why you don't ignore and ceed any community of which the opponent can run up the boards while you microtarget other communities. You make sure you win in as many communities as you can. Indeed, electoral politics is exactly the opposite- you don't show up everywhere because you can afford to lose or not come close everywhere. Your point only more reinforce the point of my analogy- not decreases its merit. A point I have made now several times, and apparently because you can't handle any criticism you have missed- don't ignore the black and Latino communities or pretend as if we have actually polled them. Reach out to them. Don't wait until the last minute to try to convince a small number of people- try to build a long term coalition. Even if you lose this cycle- you win in the next when you bring your own Proposition to overturn Prop 8. This is the difference between tactic (something John McCain knows) and strategy (something Obama understands).

   b) Either the polling results matter or they do not. If they do, then yes, we should use them to test whether strategies being used by both sides
   is working on not. That's called accountability.

   Your response is, if you can do better, do it as if I got the money that the No Campaign has to make ads and distribute them. Youtubes doesn't mean shit for the people you want to reach.

   I am making suggestions based on having followed politics and media. Just because I want our side to win (and it is our side),doesn't mean I am going to surrender judgment about how our strategy matches up against strategies that are working in other political arenas.

   My observations are not my observations alone. How many people continually argue with gay rights movement leaders that they shouldn't just assume with regard to the people of color communities?

   One wealthy benefactor smartly put money a few years ago into the red areas of the countries because he said this is where we lose the battle. This is true in California as well. If you want win long term, you need to start thinking like this.

   How much do they ever really do with that? The answer if you don't know is very little. Instead, they pressume and go with the pressumption as fact rather than do the hard work of changing it. ie, black people will vote against us is pressumed never tested by going into black community and talking to black people. This is just one example. There are many.

   Posted by: akaison | Oct 11, 2008 6:11:27 PM

   
   

10. If you want, a practical real world example of what i mean- go to a site like Nate Silvers fivethirtyeight.com and look up how Obama organized in red parts of various states in Colorado and Virginia to name just two. In state analysis, gives you an idea of what I mean. You don't just open up and campaign in comfort zone areas- you organize and go into parts of California where you know it will be hard to get the vote.

    Posted by: akaison | Oct 11, 2008 6:14:13 PM

    
    

11. totally not following your logic here, Akaison. the Obama strategy of targeting the battleground states is totally different from what we need to do to win the popular vote here in california. Obama needs those battleground states, and he needs to woo them using different tactics than he'd use to woo more young, urban, coastal voters.

    we don't have "battleground states." we have undecided voters. the vast majority of undecided voters are in a single demographic group that can be targeted with these kinds of ads. a dollar spent targeting them accomplishes way way more (in numbers of potentially persuadable people reached) than a dollar spent chasing a demographic group that has far fewer undecided voters in it.

    you must think the No On 8 staff is completely daft if you think they haven't polled all demographics. they have (no "assumptions" here). what they are doing, based on the NUMBERS, is the smart bet. those communities you mention specifically? they are NOT smart places to look for support, because they have a smaller number of people to start with, and a smaller percentage of those people are undecided. as far as convincing decideds to change their mind, everyone on both sides agrees that is a terrible waste of resources when there are still undecided voters out there.

    meanwhile, as i pointed out previously, they are still reaching out to hispanic and african american communities--that's just not where they're spending the super-limited resource of television ad money.

    you said it yourself: "the parts of california where you know it will be hard to get the vote." when there are places you can target where it will be EASY to get the vote, why on earth would you spend tons of money on votes that are HARD to get, when there is statistically no chance that they will help you win?

    oh, and i cannot believe you would suggest letting prop 8 win this time, on the assumption that we can just bring our own proposition to cancel it out next time. i almost can't begin to describe why this is impossibly naive. public opinion is shifting, but it's not shifting that fast. we're in a best-case scenario RIGHT NOW: vote NO so you don't ELIMINATE EXISTING RIGHTS. we'll never have this chance again. propositions always face an uphill battle trying to convince voters to change the status quo. trying to convince a majority to grant NEW rights (what they'll surely call "special" rights), after the majority rejected them in 2000 AND 2008? that's the toughest sell i've ever heard. meanwhile, the courts and the legislature will have their hands tied, because the constitution will specifically enshrine inequality. make no mistake: if we lose this november in california, we won't get those equal rights back for a decade or more, and in the mean time, every right-wing culture warrior will point to the 2008 election as more proof that "the public" doesn't want gays to be treated like equal citizens.

    Posted by: le_sacre | Oct 13, 2008 7:57:38 PM

    
    
« Previous

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: