IL-5 Inside Scoop

I should be providing readers an interesting insider’s view of one of the leading candidate’s campaigns through an interview scheduled later this evening.  I hope to have the post up within the next 24 hours.

Until then, I’d like to share a significant development from one of the candidates and two insightful views about the special election from other bloggers.

John Fritchey’s campaign sent out an email describing the slew of organized labor endorsements he recently received from the Illinois Federation of Teachers, AFSCME and the Teamsters.  With big labor standing behind Fritchey, it appears like the machine is preparing to line up its boots on the ground come election day.

In a strategic sense though, does labor’s endorsement of Fritchey take the wind out of the sails of competitor Tom Geoghegan who has been campaigning as a champion of the middle and working class?  In many ways, I would say yes.  Geoghegan needs that labor support to make him competitive.  It will be interesting to see the Geoghegan campaign’s response.

Gregory Tejeda questioned Sara Feigenholtz’s communication strategy when she recently emailed supporters asking them for donations, despite bragging that the campaign is the clear leader in fundraising and is the most organized campaign in the race (they are).  As I commented to Tejeda, I would be very interested to see the direct response and return on that email solicitation.

Finally, a post from Gapers Block captured the feeling coming out of the Democratic Forum this past Sunday at DePaul University.  The overall sense was the forum was short on substance but did provide a glimpse of who should be the most viable candidates.  Gapers Block writes:

“The problem for both candidates and voters is that forums with eleven candidates don’t give the audience enough time to really size up the “real candidates” in a race (those with a chance of winning) and for candidates it affords them only enough speaking time per person to make an introduction and hopefully make a pithy comment or two attendees will remember with the risk that something bad gets caught on camera.”

Clobbering Each Other Makes Room for Others

The grumblings this week from John Fritchey and Mike Quigley over Sara Feigenholtz’s questionable polling ethics has caught the attention of traditional media.  The Sun-Times reported today that Fritchey is fighting back, calling out Feigenholtz, whose name appeared on “clout lists” in an attempt to secure jobs for two women.

Photo Credit: Flickr http://flickr.com/photos/byjuice/2539595500/

The latest in this sullying saga points to two interesting facets of this campaign.  First, traditional media seems less interested in covering the issues and candidates in this race, despite a crowded and talented field.  Rather, traditional media is regularly focusing on the bickering and political insidership between the leading candidates.

This has started a probably unwelcome situation for the likes of Feigenholtz, Fritchey and Quigley.  Every time traditional media comes to their campaigns for reactions to  attacks that one candidate made on the other, the ensuing stories run in contrast to the images these three are trying to put out – Feigenholtz as a progressive, and Fritchey and Quigley as good government reformers.  Instead, the constant attacks and low-balling are a reminder that Chicago-style politics is guiding this election game.

While the candidates with the most name recognition clobber each other and diminish their arguments that they are different than the Blagojeviches and Strogers of Illinois politics, candidates like Charlie Wheelan, Victor Forys and Tom Geoghegan stand in a good position to benefit.  Those three candidates are out of the political “mainstream.” And, if the 2008 Presidential Election proved anything, it was that the non-entrenched politicians can move the grassroots enough to propel their campaign to victory.

The big question remains, which unsung candidate is going to benefit from the early front-runners’ cut-throat tactics?

So far, Wheelan, Forys and Geoghegan are filling the traditional media void intelligently by using new media they create and sharing it with those interested in the race.  Wheelan is pushing a clever video that has garnered over 4,800 views in three days, while Geoghegan’s popularity with a narrowly liberal online community has created plenty of digital good-will, as reported by Illinoize.  By the way be sure to check out Illinoize excellent coverage of the week in IL-5 action.

Why is new media and self-publishing so important?  Because candidates have complete control over the content and messages they share without traditional media doing it for them.  Again, it is crucial that these candidates define themselves, especially in light of the leading candidates drawing attention away from their own strengths.

Tomorrow will be a big day for candidates as they gather for the first Democratic debate at the DePaul Student Center.  I’ll be live blogging starting at 1:00 PM, so stay tuned.

Facebook Support in Illinois’ 5th Congressional District Race

This week, candidates went down to Springfield to officially file their candidacy to run for Illinois’ 5th District Congressional seat vacated by Rahm Emmanuel.

It’s a wide field and a seemingly open race at this point.  I see five Democrats who have a chance at winning.  And as we all know in Chicago politics, it will be a Democrat who voters send to Congress.

Greg Hinz writing in Crain’s last week reported Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigley is the leading candidate at this point, though supported by less than 20 percent of likely voters, according to a poll his campaign commissioned.  State Rep. Sara Feigenholtz is next at either 11 or 14 percent.

The majority of voters (55 percent) are undecided.

The highly competitive nature of this race combined with a uniquely talented field of candidates – from current elected and popular public officials to notable and qualified non-career politicians – suggests that any edge a candidate can sustain over their competition will be significant going into the March 3rd primary.  Moreover, with only a month until election day, momentum will play a very big role in making impressions on voters.

That being said, I’ve reported on social media efforts 5th District candidates have made before (via Twitter).  But today, I’m looking at these candidates’ levels of support on Facebook.  What you’ll see in the graph below is an interesting phenomenon taking place.  The current elected politicians (Feigenholtz, Fritchey and Quigley) are seeing lower levels of support on Facebook than two upstart challengers – Charlie Wheelan and Tom Geoghegan.

My current sense is that the established candidates might be going after each other hard and beating each other up – at least that’s the story traditional media is portraying.  That leaves room for the start-ups to really focus on winning the grassroots and hone their message.  That may prove key in winning an upset.

Overall, this race will be about momentum.  Whoever can gain momentum early and sustain it for about a month will be in a good position to win.  Social  media – Facebook, Twitter, online video, blogs, photosharing, etc. – will be particularly key in building this momentum.

At the expense of seeming too infatuated with new media and its role in this election, I would be remiss not to mention the Ron Paul example of a highly active netroots who proved to put too few boots on the street.  I do think this election is different though because it’s a hyper-local race.  The Ron Paul syndrome of too much online and not enough offline will not play out here.

The big question remains who will continue to inspire online and gain tangible support offline.  Inspiration will come from:

1. Authenticity in communicating with the public
2. Uniqueness of candidacy/message
3. Innovating with new media

This is turning out to be a great race so far.  I wish all Illinois’ congressional races would be as competitive.

Twittering for Illinois’ 5th Congressional Seat

Rahm Emmanuel’s open Congressional seat is going to be a tight race.  Several seasoned, ethical and progressive candidates have stepped up to run, including Sara Feigenholtz and John Fritchey.

In what typically is an 8-month to year-long race for a Congressional seat, the special election primary is only a few weeks away, held on March 3rd.  And, because this district is so Democratic, the primary date, for all intents and purposes, will determine the overall election winner.

In this sprint to election day, Feigenholtz and Fritchey are pulling out the social media stops to pick up supporters.  And truly this is a war.

I received a Twitter invitation to follow Sara Feigenholtz.  After accepting and following her back, I received an invitation from John Fritchey less than a half hour later.  Clearly, the Fritchey Campaign is watching who Feigenholtz is connected to on Twitter and trying to engage them as well.  It’s a bold political move, but I’m not sure I agree with it.

John, picking off a competitor’s connections seems to be walking the wrong side of social media ethics.  I would try harder to build your own following organically.  I understand there is not a lot of time and both you and Sara just started to Tweet in January but shortcuts have never been a good idea.

Fritchey has the leg up though through his blog.  He’s been blogging for quite a while and has a history and track-record in new media.  That’s great and real advantage in a short race like this.

This illustrates a point I have made that for new media to be most effective in public affairs, candidates are best served to use blogs, social networks, Twitter, etc. before running for office.

Why before?  Because history can help establish credibility and an audience.  I feel like starting to use some of these tools during an election is a huge task to handle considering all the other things in a campaign that are going on.  No wonder few campaigns use the two-way communication tools of social media that it was intended.  Rather, social media for political candidates often is another outlet to broadcast.  I’m not saying that’s going on here yet, but it’s early.

I’m waiting for Mike Quigley’s Twitter invite…

Your Senator/Congressman on YouTube

Flickr Image: Carlos Allevato

Erick Schonfeld over at Techcrunch insightfully posted about YouTube’s effort to scale Congressional and Senatorial videos by creating  stand-alone pages.

As Erick points out, traffic is slow.  At the time of writing this blog, only 50 subcribers signed up for the Senate page and 67 signed up for the Congessional page.

Erick writes:

“Nobody was watching these videos before. Putting them altogether in their own channel is not going to make them more popular. If Senators and Congressman want to use YouTube as a direct channel to the electorate, that’s great. But can someone teach these folks a little about Web video production values? They come across as little more than commercials.”

The moral of this story is that just because YouTube is another destination to post content does not mean people will visit or engage with that content if it is not tailored to the medium.

In other words, our members of Congress seem to be recycling their made-for-TV spots and communications culture and posting it to YouTube.  But, YouTube calls for something different.  It calls for taking down the barriers to the electorate.  Stop communicating to people and start communicating with people.

The strength of online communication in public affairs is the ability to make a call to action and see it through by working with and alongside the electorate.  That means taking the time to answer questions, updating posts and speaking to people like they were sitting with them in your living room – not on a TV set in their living room.

I’m curious to see who will get this and utilize this opportunity.

Russ Feingold Defining Progressive

I’ve admired Russ Feingold ever since I was an undergrad at UW-Madison (though I interned for Sen. Herb Kohl).  He’s one of the few political figures that carries ethics to the highest standard and who is not afraid to say and do what he believes is right, many times crossing party lines.  Sure, lots of political leaders say that but many don’t act on it.

Sen. Feingold is the leader of the U.S. progressive movement, particularly appropriate since he comes from the state that prodced the founder of the Progessive Party led by Bob La Follete.

Bill Moyers interviewed the Wisconsin senator this week..  Though I am not a huge Moyers fan, I think Russ Feingold was vintage Russ Feingold.  After a period of remaining out of the spotlight due to the election, Feingold reminded me of the integrity and vision political leaders ought to have guiding them through service.

In particular, I admire Russ for “walking his talk.”  He has been a consistent advocate on important issues, such as election reform, protecting the Constitution and foreign affairs.  I don’t agree with all of the senator’s positions.  But, in a political climate that often demands horse-trading and reshuffling positions, Sen. Feingold has been remarkably true to his brand.

He was the lone vote against the Patriot Act, opposed the Iraq War, sponsored the McCain-Feingold election reform legislation and sponsored a motion to censure President Bush for illegal wiretapping.  His instincts to act swiftly and for what is right is almost unparalleled in Washington.

In the Moyers’ interview, Sen. Feingold is asked about the progressive movement.  He states:

But we also have a commitment to clean government, to open government. That’s what “Fighting Bob” La Follette was all about. And some of the major reforms in the history of the country in terms of ethics, in terms of unemployment compensation, in terms of child safety laws, were all part of that great progressive movement that was started in the late 19th century and early 20th century in Wisconsin. And by the way, progressivism in Wisconsin also means fiscal responsibility. So it’s an interesting twist. But that is sort of some of the things that have gone into this belief, that we don’t like government to be involved unless it has to be. We believe in people’s liberties and their freedom. But sometimes, government has to step in, in order to make sure the community is working together.

This reminds me a lot of the modern libertarian movement and moderate Republican and moderate Democratic positions.  It’s interesting that this platform is referred to as progressive.  I think the attractiveness of progressivism, as Feingold defines it, is ironically the reasoned and moderate positions that govern its ideology.  More so, because Feingold identifies with this “progressive camp,” he is less burdened with political games that so often influence political decisions at the highest levels of government.

As an aside, I’ve observed many political candidates espousing far left political positions that call themselves progressives.  Knowing Russ Feingold’s positions, it is unfortunate that the word progressive has been hijacked so many times to mean something other than its original intent.  But, more on this topic for a future post.

Now in terms of social media, I think Sen. Feingold is quite good but has some room for improvement.

He maintains a blog, which is great, but those posts are all recycled articles that he’s published elsewhere and is reposting on his blog.  It’s ok to recycle material, but sometimes he simply must use his blog to comment on important political issues and speak directly to the public.  He can’t just use media releases to do that.

Next, Sen. Feingold must get on Twitter.  This social network is becoming such an important place for conversation and information exchange, that for him to be left out of this space, he is missing a huge opportunity.

Surprise? Tribune in Ch. 11

News of the Tribune Co.’s bankruptcy this morning was hardly surprising.  In fact, I was most surprised to see the Tribune simply mentioned when I went to the NYTimes website this morning just because  I can’t recall the Times ever referring to the Tribune for anything.

The Tribune joins the Chicago Sun Times in financial trouble, calling into question whether America’s third largest city will cease to have any, let alone two, major daily papers.

This got me thinking, how has the Tribune gotten into this financial mess?

Horizontal Growth

Over the course of many years, the Tribune has acquired other media entities, including newspapers (L.A. Times), T.V. (WGN) and radio (AM 720 in Chicago).  For decades this seemed like a good move because TV, print and radio were simply the sources of information distribution.

I have a feeling that over time, the Tribune just got too big.  Plus, all forms of traditional media advertising, the way these outlets make money, have been hit hard simultaneously as ad budgets get allocated further away from print, TV and radio.  Enduring all these blows at once must have been crippling.

I think the reality that TV, radio and print really were not the same business, became very evident as the Tribune began falling.  On the surface, yes, they are all media and they all survive on advertising.  But beyond that, they are different businesses and it’s simply hard to be great at the newspaper business, and the TV business, and the radio business.  Scalability could probably be reached through owning many outlets within the same the medium – all print or all TV, for example.

Image courtesy of http://flickr.com/people/beautyislikeyeah/

Applying the Wrong Prescription

Then along came the Internet, and these weird things called blogs and social media began to undermine traditional media and steal audiences.  Instead of trying to adapt in this new online world though, the Tribune began making changes within its own pre-internet world.  For example, its answer to declining readership was to put a heavier emphasis on entertainment news.  It seemed as if some genius at the Trib read a marketing report saying that entertainment news is a hot seller, and so the Trib better start focusing on entertainment to gain back audience.  This only compounded the Tribune’s downward spiral into not just being in a business where the means of production and consumption were changing, but the paper also no longer did what it was originally good at – reporting the news.  More on that later.

By making all these costly changes – heavier focus on entertainment, layout changes, cutting out news sections, etc. – the Tribune was not addressing how people wanted to get their news and how the Tribune could continue being relevant to a changing readership.

They could have stopped and said, “hey look at the Huffington Post” (who just got $25 million in funding), “what makes the windycitizen blog a hit?”  They didn’t ask those questions obviously because their delivery style has not changed and there has been no attempt at changing it.  These new forms of journalism that feature more interactivity were key to these sites’ successes.

Moving Away from Tribune’s Core Business

In the last few years, I find it extremely hard to tell anyone what area of the news the Tribune really owns anymore.  Local politics?  I’d choose a host of blogs that provide stories that I follow via Twitter.  Business?  Crain‘s has the Tribune beat.  Sports?  Maybe.  But, I’d still take ESPN.com to get a fuller picture of what’s happening.

My point is, areas that the Tribune used to be great at, they no longer are.  When I get up each morning and look at the local news section of the Trib online, I see anywhere between 10 and 20 stories, of which about 3 are interesting.  International news?  The Tribune is a joke.  Regional news?  I don’t see them taking leadership on this either.  City politics?  There’s some decent coverage, but again, there’s more depth from someone like a Ben Joravsky at the Reader or the blogs that cover this.

What about the Tribune’s columnists?  That’s probably the biggest turnoff about the Tribune.

Think about the New York Times again.  People read the Times because of minds like Tom Friedman and David Brooks.  The only one at the Tribune worth their salt is John Kass.  Kass has proven he has the chutzpah to report on tough issues, call out people when he believes they’re wrong and he’ll stick with a story.

The others? Eric Zorn is soft and Mary Schmich is uninteresting.  And what’s with Dawn Trice?  Do we really need a columnist devoting their three to four days per week column to race relations?  If the Tribune should know anything about the next generation of readers, it’s that the Millennial generation is a post-racial generation in so many ways.

Prescriptions for Success

Here’s my recommendations to getting the Tribune back on track:

1. Develop a real online strategy.  Give readers the news and give them control over how they get their news.  Let them rate articles to determine what goes on the front page, put up new pictures from the day’s news instead of the same photos week in and week out.  Also, the Tribune should show respect to bloggers and other smaller news outlets.   A little humility and cooperation might go a long way to engender some good cooperation between news sources.
2. Invest in good minds, make things interesting.  Right now, I don’t see any debates happening from the Tribune between its columnists.  Wouldn’t it be interesting if the Trib featured two smart people with differing political views to take on issues in order to make its readers think and question their own assumptions?
3. Be really good at something.  If the Tribune is cutting its DC staff or its international staff, ok…then cover local politics better than anyone.  Give us good reporting and full coverage, with pictures, videos, etc.  Then, cut out the stuff that you’re not good at.  If I wanted to read about entertainment news, I’d go to People or US Weekly.
4. Downsize the scope of media ownership.  I think being as big as the Tribune is, has hurt the company.  Again, it can’t do everything great.  It should pick a core business and be the best at it.  Get out of the businesses that it doesn’t understand or is not good at.

The Wild Card

Sam Zell is no ordinary owner.  He’s one of the keenest business people in the world and he knows what he’s doing by bringing the Tribune into bankruptcy.  I think the paper will emerge one day in much better shape than it is today – I wouldn’t dare say profitable but I’d say not hemorrhaging money.  Zell has the business understandings to fix this complex problem.

Social Media Will Be Very Important for Vacant Emmanuel Seat Hopefuls

Some prominent local and state Democrats are preparing to vie for newly appointed White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel’s open congressional seat.  In this coming special election, candidates will not have the time, nor the money to run a full-blown campaign with large media ad budgets.  In this atmosphere that will likely feature some recognizable names and good reputations, candidates will have to look to social media as a mode to connect with the district.

This special election promises to be different than other Illinois special elections.  Mainly, such as in the special election for Dennis Hastert’s open seat, the race was divided along party lines.  Here, the 5th district is so heavily democrat, that whomever emerges from their party, will surely win the election.  That being said, we’re looking at a crowded field of candidates cutting up the electorate along several lines.

Social media will be critical to serve the following purposes:

• Growing name awareness – most of the candidates are known quantities, but still have a ways to go before they reach Emmanuel’s level.
• Establishing their point of difference (branding) – people’s minds and traditional media usually define a candidate by a narrow set ideas of ideas or positions.  Social media can help the candidate define those positions and priorities, rather than anyone else, and have traditional media play the role of reinforcing those positions.
• Connecting with constituents, finding the evangelists - Chicagoland has a growing number of political insider blogs and interested citizen journalists that people look to for an “on the ground perspective.”  Candidates will be well served to cultivate relationships with those people.  Having key bloggers and opinion shapers in the district will be a big leg up in a tight race.
• Speaking directly with constituents – if the 2008 presidential election proved anything, voters want interaction with candidates.  I think in an election this size, the ability to scale interactions is totally within reach.
• Keeping things interesting – with all the 2008 election hoopla, we might be experiencing voter burnout.  Social media is a fantastic way to communicate and entertain.  Candidates who execute a good social media strategy will find voters will be spending more time finding out about their them.

This special election will be so interesting because it is a condensed race, filling a big-name elected’s seat and featuring candidates who are accomplished in their own right.  It’s an interesting environment for an election playing out in the 5th district.  I think whomever can think outside of the traditional boundaries of campaigns will be successful.

Following Google’s Public Affairs Challenges

Credit: New York Times, Nov. 30, 2008

I’ve written before about Google’s growing foray into public affairs, necessitated by its global dominance in search.  The intersection between search, free speech and appeasing differing laws around the world is becoming a colossal task for Google to balance its mission of making information accessible and protecting speech, while not alienating governments who have the power to restrict national I.P. addresses from using Google if it feels that the internet giant violates its national laws or sensibilities.

The New York Times has a great piece that is a must-read for anyone following following public affairs and technology.  Google, I would argue, more than any other company, has the greatest public affairs challenges on a global scale.  Their interactions between satisfying users and governments are vital to information availability and the globalized community.

Professor and guest columnist Jeffrey Rosen profiles the issues and the people behind this area of Google’s public affairs challenges: Niclole Wang, Andrew McLaughlin and Kent Walker.

I’ll leave you with this exerpt:

Voluntary self-regulation means that, for the foreseeable future, Wong and her colleagues will continue to exercise extraordinary power over global speech online. Which raises a perennial but increasingly urgent question: Can we trust a corporation to be good — even a corporation whose informal motto is “Don’t be evil”?

“To love Google, you have to be a little bit of a monarchist, you have to have faith in the way people traditionally felt about the king,” Tim Wu, a Columbia law professor and a former scholar in residence at Google, told me recently. “One reason they’re good at the moment is they live and die on trust, and as soon as you lose trust in Google, it’s over for them.” Google’s claim on our trust is a fragile thing. After all, it’s hard to be a company whose mission is to give people all the information they want and to insist at the same time on deciding what information they get.

Huckabee Positions to Emerge as 2012 GOP Leader

American two-party politics is defined by coalitions that keep the Democrats and Republicans as functioning (or malfunctioning) parties able to gain the necessary votes to win elections.  I’ve written before about the Republican Party retooling after their 2008 loss and efforts like RebuildtheParty.com to bring conservative ideas matched with an effective social media strategy.

The big missing piece to this puzzle is who the Republican leader will be in 2012 to win their party’s coalitions’ support and challenge the Obama presidency.  The recent Republican Governor’s Association meeting featured several prominent party leaders that could vie for the next presidential nomination, including: Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty and Charlie Crist.

On the elliptical machine this morning, I saw former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee speak about his new book, Do the Right Thing: Inside the Movement That’s Bringing Common Sense Back to America, on C-Span.

It dawned on me that Huckabee understands what Sarah Palin doesn’t, and maybe others too: after the Obama election, it has become evident that a candidate needs to:

1. Have a message that resonates with the different parts of party’s coalition
2. Can mobilize a movement of grass roots supporters and forgo a top-down organizing model
3. Understands the social web and can communicate and organize through that medium

Recalling the Republican primary campaign, Huckabee was positioned as the social conservative’s choice candidate.  Maybe that was due to his own communication strategy and understanding the candidate field was without a social conservative leader.  Or, maybe it was because the media and blogosphere labeled him that.  Either way, Huckabee has emerged or is positioning himself as a candidate with Obama characteristics – unifying people, appealing to what people can agree on and not what divides them, communicating the message to all the important components of the party’s coalition.

Even when talking about abortion, Huckabee’s argument was not the typical pro-life argument but rather couched in a way that attempted to appeal to a moderate or liberal’s inclination to civil rights and human dignity.  I’m sure he’ll continue that sort of “bridging” message going forward.

Most importantly, and what the other 2012 Republican presidential contenders don’t have to the same degree as Huckabee, is the online netroots.

Huckabee lasted in the Republican primary as long as he did because of his netroots.  He inspired a large amount of people to advocate and mobilize on behalf of his candidacy.  He blogged and Facebooked better than other candidates.  Plus, a small bunch of his supporters started HucksArmy.com, a highly independent social network that inspired offline actions much like Obama’s mybarackobama.com.

Huckabee continues to communicate to those in Huck’s Army and keeping them top of mind moving away from 2008 and into 2012.  Plus, he set up HuckPAC, to support candidates on issues he supports, has spot on FOX TV and ABC radio.  His book doesn’t hurt either.

His message, plus his medium and his social networks are going to propel Huckabee to the top of the 2012 contender list.  Let’s watch.