« POLL: Florida Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Lacks Votes to Pass |
Main
| The Russians are Coming: Larry Flynt Nails Sarah Palin »
10/20/2008
Shake-up in 'No on 8' Campaign
CBS5 in San Francisco reports that things are being "shaken up" at the "No on 8" campaign because of criticisms from the gay community that the ads are lame, homophobic, and that the campaign is being run badly.
Kate Kendall of 'No on 8' tells CBS it's more of a "ramping up" than a shake-up.
Watch the report HERE.
Posted 1:04 PM EST by Andy Towle in California, Gay Marriage, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The No on 8 ads were created as the results of focus groups with undecided voters. The tactics of the ads were the most effective.
Most undecided voters are ANTI-gay marriage. They don't want to see or hear from gays. Ads feature gays and lesbians will offend them more than persuade them. These people need to hear the message of equality from straight people.
These ads are NOT targeted at gay audiences. They sound stupid to the gay community because being pro-gay marriage is just common sense to most gay people.
If Prop 8 passes, I'll blame all the gays on Castro Street who sat around bitching about the ads instead of meaningfully contributing to the campaign by donating or volunteering their time.
Posted by: Eric | Oct 20, 2008 1:11:41 PM
My only criticism on the No on 8 campaign is fairly small. Why were they paying for commercials during Project Runway? I don't think you need to convince anyone watching PR--or Bravo in general for that matter.
Posted by: Tom K. | Oct 20, 2008 1:36:23 PM
This is my local CBS station and, really, *all* the stations report on 8 at least once a night. However, as my partner and I stood across the street from 10000 Chinese fundamentalist evangelicals showing their support for 8, there's more work to be done, and it needs to be done NOW-- my concern is that with so many people doing absentee voting (which is also happening NOW), the great stuff that No on 8 is going to come out with will be too late...
Posted by: James | Oct 20, 2008 1:39:19 PM
Also, today is the last day to register to vote in CA-- get out there and do it!!!
Posted by: James | Oct 20, 2008 1:42:02 PM
The real problem is that constitutional amendments can pass by majority vote. It should be at least 2/3rds super-majority instead.
Posted by: anon | Oct 20, 2008 2:01:20 PM
I agree James.
I've been phonebanking, and a number of people I've spoken with have already voted by mail.
One of my main concerns about the phonebanking operation of No on 8 is that we are not leaving messages to encourage voters to vote NO on 8. Instead, we just hang up and they are put back on a list to be called again. Right now the campaign is "gauging" support for and against the Proposition.
It is too late in the game to be "gauging support". We need to be encouraging voters to vote NO.
I know that talking directly to people is more effective than a listening to a message on a machine, but in this era of cell phones, no one answers landlines anymore.
Yesterday night, in the two hours I spent phonebanking, I only spoke with 8 voters.
Posted by: Eric | Oct 20, 2008 2:01:25 PM
Check out all of the videos on youtube on yes on 8- they all have one thing in common: They were ALL created by Mormons! They are everywhere!They are using kids and lies to get more votes! We need to post comments to educate people that all of these videos are from Mormons that are "programmed" by their Church to spread hate and discrimination!!!
I am a Robot...I was "programmed" by my Mormon Church to create videos on youtube, myspace and facebook...I am a robot
Posted by: John | Oct 20, 2008 2:28:37 PM
ERIC, I'm not sure your assertion is accurate.
Just a month ago the polls showed 53-55% of voters opposed Prop 8. That tells me that your statement "most undecided voters are ANTI-gay marriage" is inaccurate. Just a month ago we had a comfortable majority of support and I certainly don't think that the people that we've lost in the last month could in any way be considered "ANTI-gay marriage". If they were then why did they support us a month ago?
No on 8 needs to focus on those people who moved to the yes side in response to the vile and misleading Yes on 8 ads. If they can counter the Yes on 8 lies and win back those who left them over the last month then they win without having to convince a single ANTI-gay marriage voter.
No on 8 needs ads cut by Obama, Schwartzenegger and other respected politicians and celebrities in addition to ones that set the record straight on the lies being spread by Yes on 8.
You can defend No on 8 all you want but they certainly dropped the ball somewhere if they were able to lose eight points of support in one month. Sadly the greatest movement came from voters 18-29. How did that possibly happen?
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 20, 2008 2:45:03 PM
I said this before, and I will say it again- gay activists seem to be at least 4 years behind the revolution in how to reach out to people compared to the rest of the progressive movement.
I've tried emailing people about this to receive no response. The reality is that the problem with the movement can be summed up by the post above about placing ads on a run of Project Runway.
Rather than emulating strategies of campaigns like Barack Obama, which are going into red areas to try to go on the offensive, this campaign has mostly been defensive. And, no, you can't test group this point. No more than the DLC crowd could test group what progressives were telling them since the 1990s- namely you can't win by being on the defensive. You must shape the narrative. Part of shaping that narrative is to have programs like neighbor to neighbor where people are canvassing in places where the other side with push up their vote count.
By focusing only on the mythical undecideds, and by limiting the resources to comfort zones- gays are going to have a harder time of winning.
The lessons progressive learned is that if you don't show up, you don't win. Hence the numbers in ND, IN, CO, NM and MT- just to name 5- are much more positive for Democrats this time because showed up.
Gays aren't showing up in places where we don't feel "safe." This is the impression that I keep getting. Instead, I keep reading "well we won't get their vote." If I am wrong- please demonstrate that I am. Indeed, I am certain at this point given the additional criticism I am seeing that this weak approach isn't working.
Posted by: akaison | Oct 20, 2008 2:46:02 PM
It's sad to see Hank Plant himself who [to the best of my knowledge] is, remarkably, the only out gay TV reporter in the Bay Area, feeding the bullshit, childish charge that the No On 8 ads are "homophobic" simply because they don't [yet] have any gays in them. The logical extension of that is: If you don't have sex with your boyfriend in front of your parents then you're homophobic.
The ONLY kind of ad involving gays that would contribute to the campaign would be ones featuring couples like Phyllis Lyon & Del Martin who, by their age and grandmotherly appearance, wouldn't "scare" the horses, as it were. Ellen's ad is great because she has a proven "non-threatening" image among the general public AND because she talks about fairness, etc.
I admire you Eric for volunteering for phonebanking, but, respectfully, don't believe that common poltical campaign tactic can really work with such a scalding hot issue....UNLESS the numbers you're given are KNOWN undecided voters AND the script is PERFECT. The opening line appears to be something like, "Have you heard about Prop 8 that would ban MARRIAGE for SAME SEX couples." Those are the WRONG buzz words to use [just as "marriage" is insanely repeated in 2 of the 3 existing ads in the closing tag line thus negating the positive NEUTRAL messages the preceding script has [loving parents; friend urging another friend to consider fairness over uneasiness].
$1000 says that non of Obama's phonebanking says, "Will you please vote for the black candidate with the Muslim-sounding middle name?" He IS black. His middle name DOES sound "Muslim." And there's NOTHING wrong with either. But in politics you have to put forward the words that are least likely to trigger opposition.
But I totally agree with the guy in the interview who says that we should be calling out the other side for what they are ..... and are smart enough to keep denying...BIGOTS. And how many of them would like to control EVERYONE's private lives. We've repeatedly lost because our "leaders" have refused to fight back against vicious lies. Ask President Gore and President Kerry how well that works.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 20, 2008 2:52:22 PM
PS
I also said this before, but I will keep repeating this because it is important.
If gays want to win, they need to stop framing everything in short term speak.
If we lose this time- be ready to reverse this on the next ballot by putting out our own proposition.
Win or lose, start thinking of how to create long term infrastructure that can be used to ramp up on gay issues, not weeks, but months before a race.
Start recruiting local people and organizations to speak to their neighbors about this so that we don't remain an abstract other.
Take the gay sexual liberation politics out of it and turn this into a grassroot in it for the long haul fight. Focus on commmunity by community organizing. Focus on neighbor to neighbor interactions. Build infracstructure that includes more unions and more straight allies. Stop wasting money in just the flashy stuff like HRC. Focus on minority outreach. focus on class outreach (change perception that all gays are wealthy and spoiled). Focus on outreach to people of faith. These are just some suggestions.
Posted by: akaison | Oct 20, 2008 2:53:32 PM
one final point - and this one is from the new Milk movie about what Harvey Milk and the movie about him- their message:
"Mr. Van Sant said, is ultimately political. “It’s an illustration of pretty extreme grass-roots politics,” he said of his film’s message, “that you can do it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/movies/16milk.html?ref=movies
read mayor of castro street. how to build coalitions.
Posted by: akaison | Oct 20, 2008 2:59:47 PM
Honestly, I think we need to be more militant ala the Black Panthers...
Posted by: Eric | Oct 20, 2008 3:02:49 PM
Eric, I spent some time volunteering to phonebank for No on 8 as well, and I have pretty much the same opinion of it.
The only thing we were doing when I did it was trying to get people to fill out their absentee ballot over the phone with us. The problem of course, is that all the actual people I talked to did not support us (and hung up on me) or had already mailed their ballot in. It was useless. This number will go up the closer we get to the election, as well. Those people I reached that did support us, the script had me begging for money from them. The whole thing made me very uncomfortable. I decided not to go back and I just donated to them instead.
Posted by: Sgt. Sausagepants | Oct 20, 2008 3:03:50 PM
PS: Despite recent revisionist claims by some that California's anti gay teachers Prop 6 was defeated because voters saw Harvey Milk and other out gays on TV, historians agree that the tide only turned after Ronald Reagan was persuaded by closeted gay aides to come out against it in terms of fairness.
That's not meant to praise the man whom I loathe with every cell in my body for his role in what was passive genocide by AIDS. But there is no better example of the kind of tactics that work versus the kind of tactics we wished worked.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 20, 2008 3:05:25 PM
AKAISON,
There simply aren't enough volunteers for No on 8 to do what you propose. Besides, there isn't enough time in the world to visit with the hordes of evangelicals and convince them that their infallible God hath misspoken re: homosexuals.
Have you spoken to an evangelical or other very religious person about gay marriage or Prop 8?
I have, while doing phone-banking for No on 8. And let me tell you, these conversations are pointless time-wasters. No argument is going to turn them.
But there IS hope to turn people who are truly undecided on the issue to our side, and that's what the campaign is focusing its limited resources on.
Also, plenty of decline-to-state and undecided voters likely watch Project Runway; there aren't enough gay people in existence to give that show the ratings it gets.
Obama is right to reach out to the right: there are plenty of issues in this election that they might be persuaded on: war, economy, health care, etc.
However, the 'homosexual agenda' is unfortunately right now the hottest-button issue (along with abortion) for the right. Some of them are FASTING in the hopes that Prop 8 passes, for chrissakes! Going after them at all, let alone with two weeks to go, would be an utter waste of resources.
Posted by: ANON | Oct 20, 2008 3:11:08 PM
Gus Van Sant? The same Gus Van Sant who's apparently not given a dime to fight Prop 8.
And if that "coalition" in California he's bleating about was so great, what happened to it? Surely it didn't die simply because Milk did — afterwhich two different CA governors refused to sign gay job rights bills, and, later, even Arnie refused to sign two marrige equality bills and a bill that would simply have included gays in CA textbooks. And there would have been no Prop 22 banning CA marriage equality nor Prop 8 now trying to overturn the state Supreme Court decision that overturned 22.
Fuck you Van Sant. And not in the good way.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 20, 2008 3:13:30 PM
Yeah- whatever Leland. Just like the gay conservatives supported Milk all along in the 70s rather than as they are now- looking out for themselves.
Posted by: akaison | Oct 20, 2008 3:13:43 PM
The point is not that coalitions aren't powerful and necessary, but that political virgin Van Sant is overstating the breadth and depth of the one Milk created at the time. If he had been competing for votes from all across San Francisco rather than just from within the Castro district, Milk likely would not have won in 77. He, or another out gay man/woman, would have eventually, and, yes, that would have been primarily because of coalitions with nongay voters, but we are not served by hagiography.
But, yes, the primary reason we are faced with Prop 8 at all, or similar initiatives in Florida and Arizona, or that gay rights are still voted on generally, is because our gay "leaders" have "led" us [in 99% of the US] into a poltical ghetto inhabited only by gays, a few nongay friends, and fewer still nongay politicians.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 20, 2008 3:40:08 PM
Anon
I am not simply talking about for now,b ut for long term movement if gays wanted to actually obtain full rights. The black civil rights movement built over decades with many set backs, not weeks. The attitde seems to be if we don't suceed this time, we can't come back in 2010, and suceed then having put in the infrastructure missing. This stuff isn't my career. I want to make movies for al iving. I just know this stuff as a) a student of history and politics b) an organizer on poverty issues at the local level and c) as a black guy who happens to also be gay. There aren't the numbers right now because no one builds or thinks about building the infrastructure. Evangelicals, by the way, only rep a small percentage of voters. Most people on gay issues rae just knee jerk becuase a) we never engage them and b) gay is seen as separate (which is both a product of those who hate us and our own actions (in that even in politics we segment ourselves). Trust me- I am working on a creative project right now where I am learning this first hand. Gay ghettos maybe getting smaller but the mentality of separating ourselves isn't.
Posted by: akaison | Oct 20, 2008 3:48:20 PM
Very nervous about Prop 8...when is the next Field Poll or PPIC poll coming out? These SurveyUSA results are razor-thin.
There are so many unknowns here. Is the Obama 'wave' going to bring out more young people, more African-Americans, more elderly, who? The proposition is polling less than 50% support, but will the undecideds break Yes or No? Is measuring a 'gay' proposition inaccurate because of social biases?
I've seen lots of No on 8 ads, and some Yes ones. Gavin Newsom's grandstanding was rather tactless, in some ways I wish he'd record his own ad to counter it, but that would make the issue more about him than anything else. I agree it would be great to have Schwarzenegger, Obama, Feinstein, or some other pol record an ad against it, but sadly I'm not holding my breath for that.
I do have sympathy for the existing campaign position, that the No on 8 ads are inoffensive, they WORK, and they just need more MONEY. The gap is now $26-20 million or so according to that CBS5 report. So in a way the recent polls and shifted momentum have helped the No campaign.
However, as Rex Wockner and others have suggested, the No campaign ads seem tepid. The charge that they are 'homophobic' has some resonance in that there are no gays in them. We don't need to see kissing or sex, just representation in as unthreatening a way as possible.
A campaign shakeup may be what is needed, but these only happen when things are not going well. Will a more aggressive ad approach work? I hope so.
Posted by: Dan | Oct 20, 2008 4:17:39 PM
Maybe I'm naive, but it just seems bizarre to me that there aren't ads (as far as I know) featuring long-term gay couples/families talking about the importance of marriage and the terrible impact on their lives if Prop 8 passes. I understand the argument that gay people aren't the "best" faces for the campaign, but by taking the gay out of the ads, it does appear that we're hiding our lives and that our lives are not ready for prime time. Are average-looking gay couples really that scary to people who might vote NO? If they are, then it stands to reason, alas, that we will lose.
Criticism aside, I salute the work of those working hard to prevent Prop 8 from passing. My boyfriend and I have sent $ and certainly are hoping for the best on election day.
Posted by: Ernie | Oct 20, 2008 4:29:20 PM
I'm not a political consultant, but a full court press by the famous people who say they are against this would be helpful. I'm talking Arnold, Barbara Boxer, Feinstein, Oprah... and people need to be told that if they vote for this THEY ARE BIGOTS; and we need to literally attack the ads and ideas on the other side. The best ads I've seen so far are the No versus Yes, and of those the "Constitution" one I thought was the most effective, and the second best was the one with Molly talking about "Protecting Family". I ordered a crap load of bumper stickers, pins, etc. from the No on 8 campaign last week and they haven't arrived yet... I sent an email to them today asking status and I get no reply... what's with that... they should be shipping that shit out IMMEDIATELY. Tick Tock my fellow gays... it will probably arrive a few weeks after the election... alot of good that will do... ugh!
Posted by: Mike | Oct 20, 2008 10:27:35 PM
"Are average-looking gay couples really that scary to people who might vote NO?"
From the photos I've seen? Yes they are. The NO campaign isn't homophobic, it's just being smart.
Gavin Newsom with his "whether you like it or not" statement, being used in YES ads over and over, even pissed me off and I voted NO on 8!
Posted by: queendru | Oct 21, 2008 5:08:32 PM