Selling Prop 30

Though quick to point out that Brown’s approach will not work for all types of campaigns and should not be seen as a universal model, Pelote nevertheless praised its effectiveness. “What they did was make sure that they had done all of the appropriate research, make sure that everything had been properly tested, and then when there’s a window that opens when the voters are more focused on the work at hand before the deadline for them to participate, they launched their campaign. The timing couldn’t have been better. It was impeccable.”

Technique 5: “Parallel campaigns”

Though Brown’s primary “Yes on 30” campaign relied heavily on a crisis-response narrative, other organizations ran what Sabrina Smith of California Calls refers to as “parallel campaigns.” “Reclaim California’s Future” was the principal progressive grassroots coalition in support of Prop 30. California Calls and the California Federation of Teachers were both partners in the coalition.

According to Smith, the coalition felt that the Brown campaign’s crisis messaging would largely appeal to “swing and moderate voters” while overlooking the members of demographic groups that often stay home on election day. In response, Reclaim California’s Future ran a “parallel campaign” that targeted members of those demographic groups — young people, the poor, and members of minority groups — with messages of aspiration and hope. Their messaging, Smith said, focused on the ideas of “funding our future,” “getting us back on track,” and “setting up our families to succeed.” Fred Glass characterized the campaign similarly, saying it sought to ask the question, “What kind of state do we want to live in? Do we want our children to live in?”

This “parallel campaign” was not as visible to the casual observer as the primary Brown campaign because the parallel campaign did not extensively advertise. Rather, it operated an extensive program of phone banking, door-to-door canvassing, and get-out-the-vote operations. Smith reported that Reclaim California’s Future contacted 666,202 voters, identified 490,344 who said they would vote “yes” on Prop 30, and re-contacted nearly 150,000 of those individuals in the days leading up to the election to encourage them to vote. California Calls also left 26,679 door hangers, which were among “several thousand” more left by the organization’s allies. Fred Glass added that the coalition’s efforts delivered “at least a quarter million voters that [they were] sure of, and maybe more.” Smith’s research shows that in closely contested California ballot initiatives held over the last fifteen years “the margin of difference…is somewhere between 200,000 and 600,000 votes.” Reclaim California’s Future asserted, therefore, that it played an important role in Proposition 30’s victory. Both Glass and Smith felt that aspirational messaging was the key to reaching voters from groups with traditionally lower-than-average turnout.

When asked whether aspirational messaging would be as effective when seeking to reach a broader population, as on California Calls’ target constituencies, Smith did warn that there are voters who will not respond to aspirational messaging, particularly those that are “driven by values that are more fear-based and cynical.”  Nevertheless, her view is that “aspirational messages can cut across multiple audiences” and do so successfully.

In Part 2 of this article, we look at the potential pitfalls of “crisis marketing” and the ways that aspirational messaging can be made to resonate.

Corrections:

This article has been edited (Dec. 5, 2012)  to modify the first sentence of the third paragraph of the “Did Prop 30 need to have a sunset?” box in order to remove the incorrect suggestion that all interviewees referenced in the paragraph were supporters of Prop 30. That same box has been edited (Dec. 6, 2012) to make clear that Fred Glass, the communications director for the California Federation of Teachers was not himself personally involved in the CFT’s negotiations with Governor Brown.