Your Halftime Reading 🏈🏈🏈
Doomscroll 2.11.2024
Hello. Welcome to another edition of Doomscroll. Today may be the NFL’s Super Bowl, but to those of us who work in politics, we know the real Super Bowl started on January 1 of this year and lasts until November 5, two thousand and twenty-four. Who’s messing around? Not Travis Kelce. Not Taylor Swift, and not us, that’s for sure. May the best team win!
Now, if someone could please tell me which Gazan restaurant in DC has the best queso, I would really appreciate it. Thx.
One Question
Thanks to everyone who answered last week’s One Question about why the RNC had a bad fundraising year in 2023. You guys had a lot of opinions, but they pretty much amount to this: we ate shit soup in 2023. And a lot of it. Fire away, my friends:
Their digital team isn't focused on fundraising. They are focused on votes but they cant even get that
Fourth term of a chairperson who lost elections in 18, 20, and 22 and kowtows to Trump. No trust in the party apparatus.
Bc they are trying to keep Trump at arms length but at the same time they know he’s going to be the candidate so they have their feet in the water but they can’t fully commit. Also to Trump donors they are “establishment”.
Well I think the big reason was outside their control: There wasn't a real primary in 2023... It was the Trump year. No boost from the presidential, and the effective incumbency of Trump meant no new non-Trump donors.
I will say -- I do feel like the online fundraising space was SO saturated in 2023. DJT sucks up tons of oxygen off the bat, then you have other presidentials, plus insane P2Ps/emails from Joe Schmo running for Congressional District XYZ. It's hard to break through as a committee when so many candidates are playing in the space. I will say, the RNC has beat to death the Trump hook and really has nothing else. That's what happens when you make a party more about one person than a set of principles. They made their bed, they lay in it. Fire Ronna. Send Tweet.
I'll answer this with a question - is there a particularly coherent reason to give to the RNC? What does someone get out of that exactly? You need someone at the top with an articulate vision to convince people to part with their money. I'm happy to acknowledge that a number of things that most people don't see behind the scenes have improved under Ronna's tenure compared to her predecessors, but she had no place running this last time.
Why give to the RNC, indeed. Good question.
When asked if you guys had any other thoughts, a bunch of you blamed the digital team for spammy tactics and said it was in need of “fresh blood.” Fair enough, I guess, although as I’ve said many times before, digital teams tasked with online fundraising can only work with what they’re given. So to blame digital alone is a bit unfair, IMO and yes maybe I am biased because I’ve worked on digital teams in crappy fundraising environments before.
One of my dear readers really took this question seriously and submitted a several-hundred word essay dissecting everything that’s wrong with the Republican Party. He or she (all responses really are anonymous so I honestly have no clue who this individual is!) feels very strongly, as do I, that the Republican Party has a massive branding problem. From there, I agree and disagree with some of the points that were made. I can’t print the entire essay here, as much as I would love to just to get more wheels turning. I simply don’t have the space! But I do appreciate the thought that went into it. I’ll will print the last paragraph, which gives you a small taste of how this person feels:
There's a lot of other issues that could be discussed, but I think this serves as a decent starting point in terms of some of the wider issues. Some of this can be solved with enough money (i.e. being able to define a candidate as desired), but the bigger problems (brand, psychology, post-election governing) wind up outside of our control. Right now, the right is more of a collection of individuals rather than a political movement proper and until we transform into that, the fundamental problems we face aren't really going to change.
I’ll end this portion of the One Question with my own hot take: This week’s events on Capitol Hill just might be the perfect example for why the party at large can’t fundraise online right now. We look like a party that can’t govern. Individuals may be able to showboat enough to fundraise a little off the border bill or Mayorkas impeachment debacle, but at the end of the day that does nothing to help the party brand or advance the argument that online donors should give to the party establishment (RNC).
Ok: Let’s lighten things up a bit, shall we? I know this isn’t about digital per se, but with this past week’s news events I can’t help myself: Do you think Joe Biden will be on the ballot in November? Yes or no? The idea that he won’t be is getting less tin-foily by the day. And on a related note, if the Dems do stick with Biden, what does this mean for GOP messaging from here through Election Day? If a Trump victory in a Trump-Biden mashup becomes basically a foregone conclusion, it’ll be really hard for Republican candidates to campaign on stopping the Biden agenda. Right? Or am I overthinking this? Let me know!
Who’s Doing What
—Hogan knows best
Did I see this coming? No, I admit, I did not. But I am HERE for the Hogan for Senate show, so let’s dive in. First off: the announcement video was pitch perfect. It wasn’t a bio spot like most announcement videos; that would been a complete waste of time. Instead, he spent nearly 3 minutes outlining his governing philosophy. I’m giving the whole thing a solid A. It’s hard to make a compelling video with one head-on shot of the candidate speaking directly to camera for that long. But overall the script was excellent. The delivery was solid. It’s almost like this isn’t Hogan’s first rodeo.
His website is nice too, although it didn’t launch without its own hiccups. Content-wise, it’s a tad redundant and I wish he has an “issues” page and a merch store, but that’s just me. Overall, it’s very nice. Now, I’m sure the right wing of the GOP will have no nice things to say about Larry Hogan. I’m also sure that in a state like Maryland, it absolutely will not matter. I’ll be very interested to see how his digital campaign progresses this year!
—Video FTW
I’ve been seeing a lot more face-to-camera videos lately on social, which I love. I wish I had bookmarked more of them to share, but this week a couple new ones caught my eye that I wanted to flag. First, Rep. Blake Moore’s video explaining his procedural vote on the Mayorkas impeachment bill (watch it here). Here’s the thing about Moore’s video: it ain’t great in a lot of ways. Also, it doesn’t matter. This is a great example of not letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. This is the new hometown paper op-ed. Videos get more exposure, they’re quicker to publish, and they’re more relatable when voters hear it straight from the horse’s mouth. So whatever you think of Blake’s vote, kudos to him.
I also want to flag this Steve Daines video about being in Twitter jail. Is it a little bit cringey? Yes. Does it matter? No. I am 100% in the camp that believes office holders need to let loose and experiment with more creativity in their social content. And that doesn’t just mean asking a video editor to splice together some news clips with fund background music an animation. I’m talking about actual politician participation here - and I love it. Just a couple weeks ago I gave a hat-tip to a video Gretchen Whitmer posted of her talking to a potato. So…yeah. The haters are gonna hate. But I want to see more of these!
—Big Oops…
Right here, if true. I didn’t see it with my own eyes so who knows!
2024 Roundup
This is where I make note of a few other things that caught my eye this week.
Nikki Haley posted a video to bait Donald Trump into debating her. Watch it here.
Team Trump responded to the debate question by releasing their own video that ends with a photo of fried chicken and the words “Stick a fork in Nikki Haley. She’s done.” See it here.
Indiana gubernatorial candidate Eric Doden released a new spot titled “Welcome.” Watch it here.
Ohio Senate candidate Bernie Moreno has a new ad talking about how tough he’ll be on China. Watch it here.
Rep. Matt Rosendale officially filed to run for Senate in Montana. See his tweet about it here.
Cathy McMorris Rogers announced she won’t be running for re-election. See her tweet here.
Same for Mike Gallagher. See his tweet here.
Who’s Spending Where
From February 2 - 8, the top conservative spender on Facebook was Liberty Defender Group with about $175,000 on ads that promise a “free gift” if users take a super quick Trump poll. AIPAC came in second place at $134,000 in ad spend, while the Foundation to Combat Anti-Semitism came in third at $92,000. Newsmax Media spent about $62,000 on ads promoting Newsmax Plus and hitting Fox News. PragerU rounds out the top 5 with $53,000 in ads.
From February 2 - 8, the top conservative spender on Google was an entity called AFC Victory Fund, which looks to be a center-right, pro-school choice group that is waging war against a handful of state lawmakers in Texas. SFA Inc. came in second place with $52,000 while Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee spent around $42,000 on fundraising search ads. Nikki Haley for President INC spent $37,000 on a fundraising ad, while Stand for America Inc spent about $24,000 on an petition ad supporting term limits.
P2P
Industry Watch
First up: This follow-up in Campaigns & Elections about what’s underrated in 2024, is worth reading. I particularly like this line:
“After all, voters are more than just data points in a media plan. They deserve to be met where they are — even if it’s on your back porch on an iPad.”
Second: I thought Pew’s look at Facebook, 20 years in, was interesting. Maybe I’m behind the times, but I honestly would not have guessed that out of everyone who says they still get news from Facebook (admittedly not that many), 62% are women. My other big takeaway: Facebook, with all its flaws, is still a giant and can’t be ignored. Blah.
The Grapevine
Some of you may have read a little tip in Grapevine last week about The Trade Desk pitching the NRSC on ditching their digital vendors to rely solely on TTD’s managed service. By like, 9 AM the next morning I had a strongly-worded email from TTD denying the rumor and requesting I print a correction. I am happy to do so. Look, as I’ve said from Day One, the Grapevine is where I print industry rumors, gossip, and insider tips. I’m not a journo and frankly don’t necessarily feel the ethical obligation to run all these things down and provide you with a “both sides” storyline. So please treat this section like the gossip rag that it is and also know that I’ll never be above printing juicy rumors as long as the source is at least somewhat credible. At least for now. 🙂 Anyway, here’s that statement. Do with it what you will!
“Correction: The Trade Desk has denied claims they told the NRSC to stop working with digital vendors.”
Speaking of gossip, word on the street is that Mike Hahn has resigned from National Public Affairs. To do what? Not sure exactly, although his Twitter bio provides a bit of a clue. Mike - if you’re reading this - tell us more! HMU, yo.
In other news, Playbook reported this week that Speaker Johnson cut ties with an Axiom-tied fundraising firm. Dun dun dunnnnn.
Also, Marc Caputo’s deep dive into DeSantis Super PAC world is well worth the 2 hours it’ll take you to get through it. Well worth it. Seriously.
Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Fav documentary? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com
Last But Not Least
From the other side of the aisle:
I’m sure most of you came across this Politico Q&A this week with the founder of Oath, the new Democrat fundraising platform aimed at “stopping donors from wasting their money.” Here’s some of it:
The premise is simple: Help donors optimize their giving by calculating the impact additional money would have on different races. The firm bases that on a range of factors, including the competitiveness of a given election and how much cash a campaign already has. Each campaign or committee on the platform receives a score between 1 and 10, with a higher score indicating the greater impact of donations.
“There’s no one really in the ecosystem saying, ‘Enough is enough. A hundred million [dollars] is more than enough,’” Derrick said in an interview with POLITICO Magazine.
I’m of two minds on this. First, I understand the basic problem and overall I’m a fan of innovation (duh). But this also seems like central planning at its worst. Maybe there are a pool of donors out there begging DC insiders to tell them where to send their money. But my guess, on our side of the aisle at least, is that most donors want to send $20 to whoever they want, whenever they want, and not feel guilty about “not making an impact.” Maybe that’s a good thing; maybe it’s not. I’m going to keep mulling this over.
From the other side of the tracks:
The digital strategist in me loved this piece from Axios this week. The takeaway? Advertisers are acknowledging that TV commercials and pop-up events alone aren’t enough anymore to turn Super Bowl viewers into customers. Here’s more:
In 2022, the average Super Bowl advertiser saw $4.60 for every dollar spent, according to a report from market research firm Kantar.
And brands that use digital, creative and earned media to complement the ads saw the highest returns.
What they're saying: If the goal is to entice viewers and convert them into customers, then it's not enough to place the ad or pop-up an event alongside the Super Bowl, says 160/90 president Ed Horne.
"TV ads and on-site experiential opportunities can no longer just live on their own. They need to be married with digital campaigns that will attract and speak to a bigger audience."
Plus, digital buzz also generates media interest.
That’s all for this week. Thanks for reading! Did you like it? Consider forwarding to your friends!