Gary Johnson raises nearly $1.8 million in money bomb over two days

welddebate

Gary Johnson campaign website, August 16th, 11:48 PM CST

From American Third Party Report:

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee, often says that the only way he can win the election is if he is included in the presidential debates along with his major party rivals.

Yesterday, Johnson’s campaign decided to make a full throttle attempt to get Johnson into the presidential debates by launching a money bomb. The money bomb is called “15for15”, highlighting $15 donations to help Johnson’s campaign get the candidate’s name out there so he can hit the magic number, 15%, to be included in the debates (donations of all sizes are accepted in the money bomb).

As of 11:48 CT, over the course of just two days, Johnson’s money bomb has raked in $1,804,202, easily surpassing the campaign’s original $1.5 million goal and putting the money bomb well on its way towards the new $2 million goal.

The Washington Post reported earlier today that Johnson’s campaign has raised over $2.9 million since the beginning of August. The Post quoted Johnson as saying, “The fact that we received more than 90,000 individual small contributions is overwhelming.”

69 thoughts on “Gary Johnson raises nearly $1.8 million in money bomb over two days

  1. George Phillies

    Labor day is the 5th. The definitive poll will likely be afterward; before then people are on vacation. Relevant polling can therefore be done the 7th and 8th or so, and announced promptly thereafter. Polling could be later, the 13th-15th, but that is pushing things.

  2. ATBAFT

    I’m glad he is doing so well. As he has yet to ask me for any money, I’m guessing he is fine with potential contributors seeking him out. Strange, though, that he apparently has not done a fund-raising mail to the LP membership list.

  3. George Dance

    Exceeding their goal of $1.5 million is only step 1.

    I’ve tried to resist the temptation to play armchair quarterback, but I think it is incumbent on the campaign to say how they plan to use that $1.5 million to get into the debates.

  4. Chuck Moulton

    ATBAFT wrote:

    Strange, though, that he apparently has not done a fund-raising mail to the LP membership list.

    I don’t think he has access to the list because the campaign so far has refused to sign a contract with the LP. They probably never will… the LP is sensibly asking for things like Johnson identifying himself as a “libertarian”, while the Johnson campaign just wants our ballot access so he can identify himself as an “independent” or “Republican” and stake out authoritarian positions on several issues.

  5. Shane

    Impressive.

    Trump’s campaign is imploding with Mercer’s people taking over the campaign.

    So this is becoming a race to see who can take the most votes away from Hillary . . . Stein or Johnson.

    That’s probably why the Johnson campaign is liberal with the authoritarian statements . . . and they’re likely backed by a promise of $$ if they take that route.

    Sad for the LP right now but may be good down the road. Who knows.

  6. Andy

    Misrepresenting the Libertarian message like Johnson/Weld are doing is never a good thing.

  7. robert capozzi

    shane: they’re likely backed by a promise of $$ if they take that route.

    me: Pregnant but cryptic statement. I’d like to hear what you mean by this. Who’s likely making this promise??

  8. ATBAFT

    Chuck, your response makes sense. I wouldn’t give out a mailing list without quid pro quo either.
    But one would think LNC would have each nomination candidate sign a contract, contingent on them being the nominee. Then the convention delegates could take any refusals to sign into account when casting their ballots.

  9. Shane

    RC: FEC reports will eventually show if there’s any truth to that. I know I’ll take advantage of it with the Super PAC I put together . . . and I never talked to that campaign, just jumping on the opportunity since they’re running so freaking far to the left. They’ll pick up Berners and nose-holding dems.

  10. Be Rational

    It’s time. Actually it’s way past time, more expensive to play catch up and less effective, but they’ve got the money and the polling deadline is nearly here. It takes time to reach the public to increase awareness and polling numbers

    … The campaign has raised nearly $3 million in August with more to come and less than 4 weeks to get to 15% in the polls.

    Social media will NOT be enough.

    The media wants to cover Gary and they keep asking the same questions: What are you doing to get to the 15%? Where’s Gary Johnson? … and Gary has no answer, so he talks about running on issues that appeal to the people etc, … Nice pivot away from the question, but it shows the media that you don’t get it and that you are doing nothing.

    They want to cover Gary on the news, but Gary needs to give them a reason to do so – a plan to win 270 Electoral Votes in November.

    Gary Johnson needs to make the major network evening news on a regular basis.

    To do that, the Johnson/Weld campaign needs to have a plan they can sell to the media – a plan to win 270 Electoral Votes in November; a plausible plan that starts NOW; a plan that will Gary past 15% in the polls in time for the debates.

    That plan is advertising in Targeted States on Major Network Broadcast TV
    … (and a special surprise that you don’t announce to the media).

    Spend ALL of the $2.9 million the campaign claims to have raised so far in August on advertising over the next 4 weeks … starting NOW. Buy packages that bracket the morning, noon, evening and late news broadcasts.

    Spread this message to the media and they will cover public campaign events on the Evening News if they believe you’re serious. That free nationwide coverage on major network evening news broadcasts nationwide coupled with targeted advertising will get Governor Johnson past 15%.

    Announce to the media a group of target states that Johnson can win in November. These are Gary Johnson’s battleground states. Do not specify all of them, only this first group, but that advertising will begin in the first group and then expand as we get closer to election day. The first group represents over half of the 270 electoral votes needed to win in November, and winning even a significant portion of these would deny victory to either Trump or Hillary.

    The first round:

    14 states to begin advertising in and to announce to the media:

    Gary’s neighborhood:
    NM, UT, AZ, NV, CO ……. 33 electoral votes

    Bill’s neighborhood:
    ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT … 37 electoral votes

    The Left Coast (marijuana initiative states):
    WA, OR, CA …………… 74 electoral votes

    Spending: rough budget:

    $400,000 ea. in MA and NM
    $250,000 ea. in ME, UT
    $150,000 ea. in AZ, NV, CO, WA, OR, CA (northern CA only)
    $100,000 ea. in VT, NH
    $ 45,000 ea. in RI, CT

    … and a surprise factor …

    In addition to advertising on Major Network Broadcast TV in these target states, some surprise ads …
    … But, surprise means only the campaign knows until it starts …

    You should spend at least 10% of your budget on these surprise ads. If you can raise more funds, you should put up to $1.2 million out of your next $2 million into these surprise ads, the rest on more targeted TV.

    This surprise will be seen, it will reach a critical audience that you are NOT reaching on social media and it will appeal to the news media because they will notice. But, do not announce it to the media – Let them discover it and you will get more attention from this bold, surprising move.

    Because it is late and we’ve missed our best early advertising windows, I’ve added two more states to the starting target state list and more spending. If the campaign has more money they should increase these numbers. If the campaign can raise more than $5 million in August, they can expand the list and add more states – to be posted later.

  11. Cody Quirk

    Be Rational -what about Alaska? That state is Ground Zero of the possibility of GJ winning electoral votes.

    They especially need to focus on campaigning & advertising in Alaska, regardless of the distance.

  12. George Phillies

    “Social media will NOT be enough.”

    Well, you would have to spend money on it first.

  13. Shane

    Be Rational, sorry but that’s just not a good plan. TV buys make little impact — look at Jeb Bush $150 million + in targeted states and it didn’t move the needle for him at all.

    While there’s a benefit for an unknown candidate to attract support, Johnson is nearing the max on that.

    If the point is to get into the debates, spend $2m and get 2.8 million people to write into the CPD (even from targeted states). You lift your profile at the same time and collect opt in from the 2.8 million for future efforts and fundraising.

  14. Be Rational

    Everyone already knew the Bush name and no one wanted another Bush – even his mother had predicted that. So, no amount of money would help Bush. But, he did suck all the money out of the race, so the other candidates were starved for funds and attention against Trump populism.

    As to your writing campaign. That’s a good joke. If you pushed LP members and donors you couldn’t get 1,000 letters and no reasonable amount of money would generate 1 million letters.

    For Johnson, 70% of the public has never heard of him. The initial exposure from TV ads – if they spend the $2.5 million above plus $400k on the surprise advertising plan – should easily double his support in the polls.

  15. Jim

    I thought only old people watched the news? Johnson isn’t going to make big inroads with them. He just needs a small, quick boost. Stick with the demographics in which he is doing well for a short burst in polling: under 45, white and Hispanic.

    The campaign has already discussed the states they would be targeting:

    Maine
    New Hampshire
    Vermont
    North Dakota
    South Dakota
    Montana
    Idaho
    Wyoming
    Colorado
    Utah
    New Mexico
    Alaska
    and maybe Oregon

  16. Shane

    Be Rational, a good joke? It’s what my company does . . . online media on a guaranteed cost for performance. So the 2.8 million actions above are based on a CPA of $.70.

    I can complete that job in seven days or less. It would actually be one of my easier campaigns. Typically it’s an oil or telecom company wanting people to write in opposing some obscure proposed rule.

    Zero chance that Johnson would do that, but it’s what I would do . . . then solicit the new names until the general.

    Back to television, it’s dead and has been. Even networks know it as they use online display to promote new shows with tune in campaigns. The Jeb Bush example could apply to anyone. The only reason Jeb spent so much was because his PAC manager was the broker and is now furnishing his new beach house.

  17. Be Rational

    Yes, Jim, the campaign has actually put together a pretty good list. However, they aren’t targeting anything because they haven’t spent any money yet on advertising.

    Major Network Broadcast TV is still the first and most important method of reaching voters. Of course, broadcast stations are also carried on cable systems in their local area, so you reach everyone. 98% of households in the US have televisions and watch, less than 70% have cable, but most of those use cable to watch the local network stations.

    (Internet advertising is very cheap for a reason – for most purposes and most industries, including POTUS campaigns, it’s not effective except for filling in market nitches. It doesn’t work because of focus: a high percentage of Internet users can be on-line all day and never notice the advertising. They focus around it.)

  18. Be Rational

    Jim,

    The GJ/WW campaign and I each have an initial list of 14 states and 8 of them overlap. If they were advertising and spending $2.5 million in their 14 states, I would approve and cheer even if I would start with 6 different states.

    My second list, which I would begin after reaching $5 million in spending on the first 14 (more money is needed in several on the list before moving on, especially CA) includes the remaining 6 from GJ’s first list plus more as follows:

    Groups of States to add, as funding becomes available, in order:

    $250,000 in AK
    $250,000 ea. in MN, IA
    $150,000 ea. in WY, MT, ID
    $100,000 ea. in ND, SD, NE
    $400,000 ea. in WI, MI ……. 66 electoral votes – (for these 11 states)

    added to the above (corrected, numbers reversed above):

    Gary’s neighborhood:
    NM, UT, AZ, NV, CO …..…. 37 electoral votes

    Bill’s neighborhood:
    ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT … 33 electoral votes

    The Left Coast (marijuana initiative states):
    WA, OR, CA ………………… 74 electoral votes

    This would have Gary competing for 210 electoral votes out of 270 needed – something the TV networks would be happy to cover and feature Gary regularly on the evening news nationwide – the free media he needs to blow past 15% to 20%.

    In addition, beginning a massive Major Network Broadcast TV project would incentivise donors to give again and again, and others sitting on the sidelines to max out to the campaign.

    They’ve just raised nearly $3 million and they should have raised enough in July to have over $1 million on hand. If they started advertising in the first 14 states – their list or mine – they could raise millions more to add all of the next group – filling in the 11 missing states from which ever list they start with.

    They would be competing in 25 states with 210 EV and they would get in the debates.

    Being in the debates would then generate more attention than anything else they can afford to do. This will bring in enough new supporters and donors to target 270 electoral votes. Polling at that time would give a better idea how to pivot their target states: what additional states to add and which ones to drop.

    If even more money were available before the debates, beyond $9 million in the first two groups with another $1 million for the surprise advertising in 2nd group states, I’d add this third group:

    $150,000 in HI
    $200,000 in MO
    $500,000 in FL
    $500,000 in OH ……. 61 electoral votes

    This, of course, makes 29 states and 271 electoral votes.

  19. Shane

    Be Rational, your numbers are all well thought out but the medium doesn’t allow for measuring performance until post election. Unless it’s BTL marketing you won’t have a call to action — and BTL isn’t for persuasion.

    Have you done TV spends recently? How did you measure performance?

    The old time consultants always go to TV first because it’s all they know — and unfortunately they get away with it because you can’t measure perfmance until it’s too late. Ever since time-shift viewing, TV ads have lost effectiveness unless during live and high priced events like the Super Bowl — and that price rules out ROI.

  20. Be Rational

    There are many ways we will be able to see our results more quickly:

    1) media response. The news media will see the ads and call for interviews, cover more events. This will impact local LP groups and candidates and get Gary on the network news shows (where he’s still blacked out), not just talking head shows. It will start with local coverage in the target states. With ads running in several target states, the network news shows will notice and cover Gary’s events.

    2) a boost in polling in the targeted states. The some of the states where the ads will run there are statewide polls. We’ll need to compare such polls before and after the ad buys.

    3) include a toll free number. Yes this still works. But, you have to give the viewers a reason to call or google. Half of the people in America will not respond on the Internet and we need to reach out to them. Calling times and locations can be tracked to ad times and locations.

    Seeing it on TV is still more effective – more urgent, more real, more important – than just showing up on social media.

    Trump’s tweets only worked because they were picked up on the news and seen on TV. This only worked because Trump is rich, outrageous and newsworthy, running and leading for a major party nomination.

    LP candidates are not newsworthy. We have to earn that by buying TV spots.

  21. Shane

    Social media sucks. I never pay for it aside from testing and agree with your there. It’s great for buzz and that’s about it.

    If you rely on polling, you’ll have to do your own in those states and honestly those small budgets would drive them up even if it were effective.

    It’s hard to convince people when they’re stuck on a strategy. If I knew of one that was superior for the purpose, if be all over it. If you were doing non-persuasion lead gen and the candidate had a built in audience on the network, sure — maybe that would work on Viceland.

    Your statement on urgency and all that was true 15 years ago, maybe even 10, but not today. Few people watch ads, just like few pay attention to online display ads — that’s why I only deal with in performance-based pricing. Otherwise you’re burning cash.

  22. Just Some Random Guy

    Be Rational seems to put a lot of effort into writing up campaign strategies… in a place where it wouldn’t actually be read by anyone who might implement them.

    At any rate, I still think that at this point YouTube (and possibly Hulu) ads might be the better way to go. It’s an easy way to show the ads to people on a national basis without breaking the bank as much as a 30-second ad spot on national television. Targeting specific states seems to be more something you would want to focus on AFTER getting into the debates (at which point winning states actually becomes plausible and thus would be a goal worth working towards), because the important thing to get into the debates is polling *nationally* at 15%. Plus, you only get charged when people actually watch the ads for a long enough period of time, so someone using adblock or skipping through them whatever wouldn’t cost you.

    Still, he’s really got to start putting out ads SOMEWHERE.

  23. Shane

    Totally agree with video pre-roll. Pay per completion isn’t bad and better than TV for sure. There’s even cost per
    Comprehension now that make a correct answer to a challenge question from the video a chargeable event.

    TV ads are dead.

  24. Be Rational

    Internet ads are still very cheap for a reason. They don’t work.
    98% of households have TV and watch.
    The majority of voters – the people we need to reach – do not use the Internet on a regular basis.

    Narrowly focused ads on YouTube or Hulu will be viewed by a very small slice of the American electorate. That is no way to reach 15% in nationwide polls of likely voters.

    POTUS campaign require saturation of a populaton area – State or Congressional District. This requires reaching nearly everyone and winning a plurality. Most voters will not visit YouTube or Hulu in any given month. 98% have televisions and most will see TV spots. Internet ads allow a campaign to fill in a partial segment of people who don’t watch TV.

    The major network broadcast news programs are still blacking out Gary because he is NOT running TV ads in targeted states. They understand that a candidate that doesn’t advertise in enough target states to win 270 electoral votes – or at least enough states to carry some electoral votes – isn’t worth covering.

  25. robert capozzi

    br: The majority of voters – the people we need to reach – do not use the Internet on a regular basis.

    me: Source, please.

  26. Shane

    BR, sorry bro but you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Online ads, specifically programmatic placement is one of the fastest growing areas of spending . . . because they work.

    They work so well that I have algorithms that I use that allow me to GUARANTEE prices to my clients based upon what they want to achieve (Cost per Action). And as far as scalability, it can go big.

    Do most mom-and-pops and tiny campaigns know how to make online ads work (or any ads for that matter)? No, they don’t. It takes a significant investment to have an effective campaign and the minimum buy is around $100k.

    So it’s not cheap and I turn away hundreds of thousands in work each year because the clients’ campaigns are too small to be effective — and I don’t want to waste their money.

    Anyway, have fun with the thoughts of TV success.

  27. Just Some Random Guy

    “br: The majority of voters – the people we need to reach – do not use the Internet on a regular basis.

    me: Source, please.”

    Indeed, isn’t Johnson’s popularity largely among millennials, who would be the ones most using the Internets? Wouldn’t they therefore be the ones most likely to resonate with his message?

    Though what the “98% of people have a TV and watch it” misses is that if you put an ad on television, even national television, it will be a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of that percentage who will actually see it.

  28. George Whitfield

    I think this fund raising effort was a great success for the Johnson-Weld campaign and indicates growing support.

  29. Joe

    George Phillies @ August 17, 2016 at 21:24
    “Social media will NOT be enough.” — Well, you would have to spend money on it first.

    EXACTLY! One can be encouraged by a campaign that can raise $1.8 million on a money bomb but only if one assumes the funds will then be spent/invested for maximum impact. If they are instead provided to consultants for more of the same advice, then who cares if they raised $10 million or 10 cents, the effect on the campaign/number of votes will be identical.

    I want to be excited by this, but past experience can sometimes be an accurate predictor of future results.

  30. Just Some Random Guy

    I do wish he would articulate how the money is going to be spent. I can understand spending money on consulting and stuff, you want the campaign to be run well, but you still do have to spend a lot on video ads, whether that advertising is on TV or YouTube. And it has to be done soon with the debates coming up. I’m hoping the wait is because he wants to do one big mass simultaneous batch of advertising in a ton of places, but who knows.

  31. Be Rational

    They work so POORLY that I have algorithms that I use that allow me to GUARANTEE prices to my clients based upon what they want to achieve (Cost per Action). And as far as scalability, it can go big. – Shane

    *****

    Since you only shill for Internet ads that don’t work, and you are clueless about what you are selling and why it works the way it works, it’s no wonder you are confused.

    Internet Ads are seen by almost no one. Millions of ads go by without a single observer. No one notices them. So, the various sellers had to make a deal to sell these worthless ads: the ads are free unless someone responds.

    You can buy similar ads that run on unwatched cable channels and very late night TV: product ads are run by the cable company or station on spec, purchases of products are routed through sales reps controlled by the cable company or station, they take the order, collect the money and the vendor ships the product. These ads are run on usless cable stations and during unwatched 3am programming, so they are guaranteed – just like the deal that allows you to guarantee results from worthless Internet ads that no one watches.

    When ads are run during programming that people actual watch, no guarantees like yours are needed, because the advertising actually works.

  32. George Phillies

    Shane, how do you define “action”? A page like? A group join? A donation?

    I am not complaining, but this is a point where precision is needed.

  33. Andy

    Another point about TV ads, especially if they are on a big network during prime time, is that these ads still carry a lot of credibility with a lot of the public. A lot of people will take a campaign more seriously if they hear about it on TV. Also, there are still a lot of people who do not go online, and even among those who do go online, they may not go to places online where they would see our ads.

    I am not knocking online ads, as i agree that they are important, I am just pointing out that TV ads are also still important.

  34. Just Some Random Guy

    Internet Ads are seen by almost no one. Millions of ads go by without a single observer. No one notices them. So, the various sellers had to make a deal to sell these worthless ads: the ads are free unless someone responds.

    So… what’s the problem? You don’t pay for the useless ads, right? That means the money you spend is only spent on ads people respond to. That seems better than how you get charged for TV ads despite not knowing how many people will actually just be out of the room when they play.

    If I pay some amount of money for 1000 people to react to my ad (in clicking on it if it’s a banner ad or in watching it if it’s a YouTube video ad), the fact is I’m getting 1000 people to react to it. It doesn’t matter if a billion people pay no attention to it because the amount I’m paying for IS paying attention to it.

  35. Just Some Random Guy

    Whoops, my goof. Was so used to closing out quotes on forums with /quote instead of /i that I did the former rather than the latter and left out the italicization. Here’s the message that should have been posted:

    Internet Ads are seen by almost no one. Millions of ads go by without a single observer. No one notices them. So, the various sellers had to make a deal to sell these worthless ads: the ads are free unless someone responds.

    So… what’s the problem? You don’t pay for the useless ads, right? That means the money you spend is only spent on ads people respond to. That seems better than how you get charged for TV ads despite not knowing how many people will actually just be out of the room when they play.

    If I pay some amount of money for 1000 people to react to my ad (in clicking on it if it’s a banner ad or in watching it if it’s a YouTube video ad), the fact is I’m getting 1000 people to react to it. It doesn’t matter if a billion people pay no attention to it because the amount I’m paying for IS paying attention to it.

    (Hopefully the comments won’t do that goofy thing I’ve seen on a few sites where an unclosed italics carry on to the next comment)

  36. Just Some Random Guy

    All that said, regardless of whether the “best” place to put ads is on YouTube, television, or anywhere else, Johnson does desperately need to be putting up ads SOMEWHERE. Admittedly, perhaps I just don’t live in a state worth targeting at the moment (though as the goal is to get to 15% in a national poll, targeting “winning” states is less important at the moment), but I’ve seen zero ads for him anywhere. Social media, general outreach, and consulting are important things, but you still have to be putting up those ads.

    I’m hoping that the delay is because he wants to launch a massive strike strike a bunch of place simultaneously, sort of like the “money bomb” thing, but time’s rapidly running out.

    Apologies for the triple post.

  37. Be Rational

    The problem with Internet ads is still the same – no one sees them.

    For a business that needs paying customers, if they can find enough customers to make a profit on the Internet, then this is fine. So for them, paying only for responses can be a workable marketing strategy.

    For a political campaign that needs to secure a plurality of voting age Americans that actually vote, the Internet is only useful to fill in a tiny segment of the public that does not have or watch TV.

    About 98% of the public has Television and they watch frequently. Most households have multiple sets and watch for many hours daily.

    About 80% of adults have access to the Internet and of that group about 70% use social media – so only 56% of adults. This is only access. Having access doesn’t mean that they are frequent users.

    Older adults – the segment that votes most frequently – age 50 and up – are less likely to be connected to the Internet, and even if they are connected they are usually just occasional email users and much less likely to use social media. In addition, they are not frequent users. Older adults that are connected and use social media at all (30% or so) tend to visit social media sites only occasionally – averaging several times per year. So, during any given month, a tiny percentage will be on social media at all. And there remains the fact that only a tiny fraction of 1% of ads that appear on the Internet are noticed at all by the small segment that is actually on-line.

    Those who are deciding what candidates to cover and put on the major news programs are more influenced by TV – they watch multiple channels simultaneously all day – and they are older as well.

    Household members who are at home and answer the phone for pollsters are also older and more likely to be watching television than using the Internet.

    A POTUS campaign needs to reach nearly everyone to have any chance of securing a plurality of voters. At the present time hey can only do that through television.

  38. Andy

    I agree with some of Be Rational’s points about TV advertising, but it should be pointed out that older people are the least likely to vote for Libertarian Party candidates, and for that matter, for any minor party or independent candidates in general.

  39. Just Some Random Guy

    I agree with some of Be Rational’s points about TV advertising, but it should be pointed out that older people are the least likely to vote for Libertarian Party candidates, and for that matter, for any minor party or independent candidates in general.

    This is part of the reason why I was in favor of Internet advertising; you’re reaching the demographics most likely to actually listen to you. And remember the goal right now is to hit 15%; trying to actually achieve a plurality comes after hitting the debates (and there being more cash flow to do so with).

    Also, Be Rational, that 98% thing you keep tossing out doesn’t mean anything unless you’re actually reaching all of that 98%, which you won’t unless you’re airing commercials on every channel 24/7, which no one (and certainly not third party candidates) have the cash to you. For TV advertising, you spend a certain amount of money to reach a certain amount of people (or more exactly, an estimated number of people, as advertising rates are based on past Nielsen ratings for a series), and on Internet advertising, you spend a certain amount of money to reach a certain amount of people. Things like “most views don’t count towards an Internet ad” doesn’t matter because those views AREN’T being counted towards the money you spent, so you’re still reaching the number of people you pay for. Similarly, the percentages don’t matter unless your advertising is so strong it “tops out” them, which you can’t do without an exceedingly high amount of money.

    Still, though, I’m currently waiting to see much of any advertising in either medium.

  40. George Phillies

    For the Libertarian Party, a campaign based on reaching older voters is out of touch with reality. Most voters only choose a political party once or twice in their entire life. The voting group you need to reach are first-time voters, setting them in a direction they will later stay with, realizing that you may need half a century to get a plurality.

  41. George Phillies

    Based on the current Huffington post poll aggregation (and a somewhat different poll aggregation at RealClearPolitics), a campaign plan based on getting 15% and getting into the debates is not in touch with reality, unless you believe that all the polls except the five that matter are magically skewed against Johnson, a position that is not in touch with reality. Note that Fox is about to switch from 3-way to 4-way.

  42. Dave

    From what I’ve seen, the Johnson campaign seems to be attracting most of its support from young voters. I’ve seen more than one poll that had him in either second or a close third with that vote group. To be fair, Stein also has been performing respectably. It seems like a lot of millennials are more willing to vote non dem or gop, which is encouraging. One poll example:

    http://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2373

  43. Dave

    In Virginia, Johnson is at 14% with voters age 18-34, Stein is at 11.

    In Iowa, Johnson is at 29%, Stein’s at 7. Clinton’s actually third among young voters, with 28.

    And in Colorado, Johnson’s at 29%, Stein’s at 17. Trump is actually nearly 4th, just beating her by a point.

    So Johnson is beating one of the major party candidates in two of the three states polled. Hopefully other polling outfits confirm this.

  44. Shane

    GP, the client defines the action.

    For advocacy clients, the action is typically an official comment or a letter.

    I don’t do social media so it’s never a like, but I have done a Twitter campaign (sending a tweet to certain people).

    The action is only limited to what can be done in banner. The main reason I can guarantee a rate is because I use rich media and don’t use landing pages. I still get full opt in with the in banner form.

    I can’t turn nickels into dollars (the holy grail) so really the main limit on the action is that I can’t guarantee donations, but I can give projections when combined with an email program.

    With a national campaign, I can do 250k actions a day without issue. With narrow targets, the speed is dictated by the size of the universe. I can normally get 20% of a universe to respond but sometimes 50%. One I just ran was single women without a college education who are non-primary voters and live in urban CD’s. So fairly narrow.

  45. robert capozzi

    Makes perfect sense to me that J/W would gain traction first among the young. That will not be enough to get to 15%. What they have put in place is a machine that can maximize the opportunities as they present themselves. Is the Team ready for their Warholian 15-minutes…I’d say they seem so. I watched a bit of the Alb. rally y’day, and I’d say they are getting their groove on. The kinks are still being worked out, but it’s getting there.

    Now they need to get the Boomers and GenXers to remember what it’s like to be young and less fixed in their preconceived notions. Or simply disgusted with DJT and HRC. Outright mainstream R leadership endorsement will help in this regard.

  46. George Phillies

    Colorado

    From where are you getting numbers?
    Clinton 41, Trump 33, Johnson 16, Stein 7 is Quinnipiac.

    Wining a sufficiently focused group of voters, and winning the state, are not the same thing.

  47. Andy

    George Phillies said: “Outright mainstream R leadership endorsement will help in this regard.”

    Outright mainstream R leadership endorsement could end up costing votes as well, as if some people find out about this endorsement, this will be a reason to not vote for Johnson/Weld.

  48. Be Rational

    * Makes perfect sense to me that J/W would gain traction first among the young. That will not be enough to get to 15%. RC

    * 70% of voters haven’t heard of Gary Johnson.

    * Polling puts GJ/WW somewhere in the 7% to 10% range, with a few polls above 10%.
    [Not bad when only 30% of the public has even heard of you.]

    ****

    As explained in my post above, (Be Rational, August 20, 2016 at 15:56), ony a small segment of the voting public can be reached by way of the Internet – even if you reach everyone who is regularly on the Internet. Most social media activity and usage comes from those below age 18. This is a revolutionary age and elections will be much different for future generations as a result – 15, 30, 45 years in the future. But not now.

    Johnson’s best bracket of current support comes from young adults where he is getting as much as 25% of that age bracket in various polls. Of course this has always been true, they young are more likely to consider more radical ideas, to embrace change. This is the group that is already aware of Johnson, this is the group that uses social media, and Johnson has picked up 25% or so of this group.

    Johnson’s 7 to 10 percent in the polls also represents about a quarter (25%) of the 30% of the voting age public that has heard of him – mostly young adults. Gary’s support has little room for growth among this group at the present time.

    So, to get to 15% in the polls, we have to reach the people who do NOT use social media, people who are not young adults, people who do not use the Internet, the 70% who have never heard of Gary Johnson.

    What all of those people have in common is that they all watch TV.

    Young people – and only young people – have a very high usage rate on social media – and they are already supporting Gary: 25% of them. We cannot improve Gary’s polling numbers very much; not without reaching the young people off the Internet, not without reaching every other age group that seldom or never uses social media and is only rarely on the net.

    We are getting a quarter or more of the 30% who have heard of Gary Johnson, putting Gary between 7% and 10% in the polls.

    We need to double or triple Gary’s support in the polls. If we can get 10% support from the 70% who have never heard of Gary, we can double Gary’s support in the polls, 20% would triple GJ’s polling. Earning 10% to 20% from the 70% who have never heard of Gary is what it takes to get GJ/WW past 15% overall.

    It will be much easier to get 10% – 20% from the 70% that have never heard of Gary than to move the 30% who have heard of Gary from 25% to 50% support.

    So, we have to go where that 70% is. They are not on social media and rarely on the Internet at all. Only about 1/3 of this group use email and occasionally google something. We have to reach them on TV.

    98% of the public watches TV.

    Those who are active voters also tend to watch network news shows: local news in the morning, at noon, in the evening, the late news, the nationwide network evening news … these are their news sources.

    They trust what they see on the news. If it’s not there, it’s not real. The Internet and social media don’t impress them much. Even many young people who use social media and who have heard of Gary won’t consider him until he is covered on the real news on TV.

    So, we have to braket the news shows with TV spots intoducing Gary Johnson. We have to do it in the next three weeks or it’s too late.

    We cannot afford saturation advertising nationwide. Even if we only focused on one major network, the Johnson campaign hasn’t raised enough money.

    They have raised enough to target key states – especially small states with cheaper ad rates and the advantage of overlapping markets with other key states. This has been layed out thoroughly.

    When you advertise unexpectedly in an effective manner, enough to affect the outcome of an election, the media will notice. They will notice if we advertise on major networks in key states. It will change the polling in those states. It will threaten to change the outcome in those states. It can move GJ/WW to potentially win one of more Electoral Votes in the targeted states.

    The media in the target states will notice immediately – they may notice before the ads actually run (the sales staff will tip off the news staff) – and they will cover Gary on every local network news shows in the state. This will boost Gary even further than the ads. The free coverage will be worth many multiples of the cost of the ads.

    The media in the target state will also reach out to interview and cover the local LP groups and LP candidates in the state – resulting in even move coverage – which may be good, depending on the quality of the LP candidats and party spokespersons.

    Once the target state ads run, the state media begins its coverage and the national media is notified. If any candidate, other than a D or an R, moves within striking distance of carrying one or more states, or even just tipping the outcome, that candidate will receive free, nationwide coverage on the evening news on every network.

    GJ has been blacked out by the evening news, because he doesn’t advertise on TV and threatens to win no electoral votes.

    To get to 15% in the polls we need to reach the 70% of voting adults who have never heard of Gary Johnson. They are very unlikely to hear about him, listen to what they hear, and be moved to actually support and vote for Gary Johnson, anywhere but from what they hear on network TV news. That’s where we have to be, and, to get that coverage, we have to advertise by bracketing the news shows – morning, noon, evening and night – for at least a three week period at this point in the campaign – on Major Network Broadcast TV in targeted states.

  49. robert capozzi

    Andy, you mis-attributed that sentence to GP…it was me.

    Yes, of course, some find validation from the mainstream offputting. On net, though, I would contend that most seek the safety of the herd. Stepping away from the center requires some positive reinforcement for most, I suspect. If Mitt or Jeb endorse, for ex., that makes the vote for J/W less risky, on net.

    It’d be great if some D leaders did so, too, but I see no evidence that any of them are considering doing so.

  50. George Phillies

    “to get to 15% in the polls” Wrong and probably unattainable objective. But it’s a cool fundraising line.

  51. George Phillies

    “George Phillies said: “Outright mainstream R leadership endorsement will help in this regard.” ”

    No, I didn’t. It’s not even coherent English.

  52. robert capozzi

    Ha! Technically, the term should be hyphenated.

    Shakespeare and Einstein, all in one package. Impressive. 😉

  53. Andy

    Robert, those who seek the “safety of the herd” are not likely to ever vote for Libertarians or any other minor party or independent candidates. They are the people who are most likely to vote Republican or Democrat no matter what.

    Trying to appeal to these kind of people is a losing proposition.

    The type of people whom Libertarians attract are the kind of people who’d be turned off by an endorsement from establishment Republicans like Bush or Romney.

  54. robert capozzi

    aj, perennial 1% results don’t suggest a rethink.

    Perot’s 92 outcome suggest that the herd’s perimeter is wider than perhaps you believe it to be. GJ’s vote totals may also suggest that your cynicism is unwarranted.

  55. Thomas Knapp

    “The majority of voters – the people we need to reach – do not use the Internet on a regular basis.”

    Probably true. If the clock rolled back to 1995 when I wasn’t looking, anyway.

  56. Andy

    Robert, lots of independents and people who don’t usually vote came out for Perot. This should be our target audience as well.

    We can also strip away a few of the “lesser of two evils” voters away fromthe D’s and R’s, but I do not see us getting much if any of their loyal base.

  57. robert capozzi

    aj, we agree, then, on the base. My contention is that most independents also prefer the safety of the herd, that is, they are more or less centrist.

    They are not ready to move to AndyLand just yet! 😉

  58. Andy

    Robert, I think that there is a large untapped base of people who would vote for Libertarian Party candidates if they had the right marketing and if they could reach to public with their message.

  59. robert capozzi

    AJ, possibly. It’s been tried now for 4+ decades to no avail.

    Do you have the secret sauce that will captivate 10x of the previous results? What is it?

  60. Andy

    Ron Paul went a long way towards showing us the way in 2008 and 2012. I believe that we have the potential to replicate something like that in the LP, but too many people in the LP have squandered the opportunities we have had.

  61. robert capozzi

    So, you have a problem then, AJ. RP1 had a resume and is a NAPster, more or less. There are no other NAPsters in Congress or serving as guvs.

    RP1’s brief moments in the sun were earned by his first having a resume.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *