The Tobias Read event went well.
The purpose of a political event is to widen the network of support for a candidate.
The event demonstrates a positive connection with a community of interest. The event demonstrates to attendees that the candidate is well liked. The event is a catalyst for raising money. Events give attendees a chance to have casual conversation with the candidate. A news organization can turn it into a story. (In this case, KOBI, an NBC affiliate with a substantial local news operation, sent a reporter who taped a few minutes of Tobias Read's comments. The reporter is in the background, to the left of the photo.)
Political events are sometimes primarily "meet-and-greets" and sometimes are primarily fundraisers, in which the attendees are fully told that they are expected to donate money. The Read event was a meet-and-greet. The goal was to get people to the event. In my experience high-dollar fundraisers work only for top offices, i.e. incumbent U.S. representatives and senators and the state governor.
The candidate's campaign authorizes and schedules the event. Typically, they prepare the invitation. They decide whether this is a meet-and-greet or a fundraiser. But most of the details of the event are handled by the host, not the campaign.
The primary benefit of the event is the invitation to the event, not the event itself. There is no such thing as too many people at an event. "Too big" or "too crowded" is the goal.
Here again is the Read invitation.
Notice it says right up front that the event is at my home. In the last five years or so, a pernicious and self-destructive element has become standard practice in political invitations. The invitations often say something like: "RSVP here. Location address will be sent within three days." I consider this insulting and counter-productive. The invitation reaches out to a wider community but simultaneously telling recipients that they cannot be trusted to know where the event is. That is the opposite of open hospitality and mutual trust and respect. I told the campaign to include our names and address.
If I were doing the invitation myself, for purposes of legibility, I would drop the photo image of the lake and mountain, but keep the smiling image of Tobias Read. But the Read campaign uses this format and it isn't important enough to fuss over. Note that the RSVP phone or email goes to the campaign, not the host. It would be a nuisance to get scores of phone calls, texts, and emails a day. However, the campaign and host stay in touch about headcount.
Campaigns should pick their hosts and the event site with care. The web of associations is the message. Candidate, hosts, and hospitality all combine in a genial outreach. The Read campaign was apparently OK with having our names associated with his.
What about security? Was I afraid to have my address listed? No. My name, address, and phone number are published in whatever phone books still exist, and they are available on line for a click. My home is visible on Google maps, Zillow has its supposed value, and county records with its supposed quality are public and available. I have had demonstrators picket an event. They were young climate activists with banners saying that Senator Jeff Merkley should be even stronger in support of climate action than he is. He is probably already one of the most committed environmentalists in the U.S. Senate, but they wanted more. The demonstrators were on the street, and they improved the event up at the house by highlighting the issues and stakes involved in his election.
What about food and drink? Answer: It doesn't really matter. The host should provide something, but people aren't there for the food and drink. Wine and water are traditional. There is typically food placed out for people to sample. Hosts can spend money on a caterer -- we tend to do so -- but it doesn't really matter.
What about music or other background entertainment? It is totally unnecessary, but if the host has a friend who will play a little music during the meet-and-greet chit-chat portion of the event, that is a nice touch.
More important is the space. The host must be psychologically and practically ready to have a great many people be invited, most of whom will not come. Campaigns typically act with diffidence about the invitation list. They want to be cautious and don't want to overwhelm a host. Can we invite previous donors? Yes. Can we invite donors to other campaigns? Yes. What about precinct committee people? Yes. Yes. Yes. Since the invitation is the most important thing, I urge campaigns to invite as many people as possible. The invitation is the place to spend energy and money, not on food and flowers for the event. Most people who get the invitation will be interested enough to read it, but not interested enough to attend. But what if too many people attend? I say great. People will see that a great many people are interested in the candidate.
Wineries are now event spaces. If a campaign cannot find a host willing to have a thousand or more invitations sent, then do the event at a winery or some other event space. They have the essential elements: physical space, bathrooms, parking, a microphone and sound amplification. The invitation can and should list the names of "hosts," i.e. people who underwrite the cost of the venue. The host are part of the message.
What about "the ask." Every event I have ever hosted or attended has a two or three minute "ask" when someone other than the candidate urges people to donate. People will donate according to their interest and capacity. The "ask" simply reminds attendees of the stakes of the election and that their donation is part of a good cause. There is one piece of magic in the "ask." It need not be heavy-handed, and indeed must not be. But the "ask" must ask for the order. It is not sufficient to say, "I hope you will consider donating." That is asking people to consider something and considering isn't giving. A proper "ask" requests people give a donation today, and indeed now. "Please write a check and put it in the envelope at your table."
I like holding events because I consider them the cleanest, best example of democracy in action. Amid all the transactional donations by special interests, and amid all the second-hand methods of influencing government in advertising and social media, there is nothing more wholesome than a candidate meeting and greeting voters and getting voluntary campaign help from people.
[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to Https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
8 comments:
Yay for democracy and for people like Peter who make it work. It’s way better than trying to get some kind of desired outcome by killing. Let’s not take democracy for granted.
“If I were doing the invitation myself, for purposes of legibility I would drop the photo image of the lake and mountain, but keep the smiling image of Tobias Read.”
At least the lake and mountain in the photo are in Oregon, unlike Trump’s campaign ad in Georgia which included a photo from the Republic of Georgia. That seems somehow appropriate since it’s a country sliding into authoritarianism, as would the U.S. under Trump.
The only thing I don't like is the emphasis on money. Whoever raises the most money wins. Nothing to do with policy or intelligence or as vision of the future. Just the money. Good leadership has nothing to do with money. But, money usually wins out. That's democracy in the modern age.
Good event. Interesting seeing the different candidates for political offices attend as guests, mixture of Rs and Ds.
Until we defeat Citizens United and the Supreme Court's belief that money is speech. We must fight money with money. As hypocritical as that sounds, it is where we are with the Supreme Court's idiotic interpretations that money is speech, the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a well-regulated militia, and the right to your own health care decisions for women will be dictated by the States are patently absurd on the face.
More money certainly helps a campaign, but never guarantees it. I seem to recall a California millionaire who spent a lot of his own money, more than the opposition, but fortunately did not win.
Michael Huffington from California, perhaps? Though his failed U.S. Senate bid certainly helped launch his more capable spouse, Ariana.
Then there was the genuinely capable New York billionaire Mike Bloomberg, whose riches nonetheless bought him few votes for President.
So maybe nobody wins a big race without lots of money, a minimum operative amount, but spending the most money hardly ensures victory.
No doubt the Supremes determined money is free speech because they've learned that money talks - especially Justice Clarence Thomas.
Post a Comment