Campaigns & Elections' Politics - February 2008 - (Page 19) Politics: I’m assuming you’ve had situations that horrified you, when it became clear that you were supposed to tell candidates why they were running, instead of the other way around. Dunn: You will get candidates who say to you, to flat fees. Or to caps, so that at some point it doesn’t matter how much the campaign spends, you’re not making any more money, you’re working for free. Politics: How will that money be spent moving forward? Do you think the trend is back toward more national ad campaigns and less spot market? Dunn: I do, because states are changing and the “What’s my message?” And that’s in the spirit of saying, “I have strong beliefs, now how do we turn that into a succinct message?” Or there can be the ones who say, “Why am I running?” You run into those. Politics: Don’t you find yourself thinking, You should be telling me? Dunn: Well, often I will say that. And I’ve giv- en candidates the assignment—I think we all have—of going off and writing down their reason for running and bringing it back to me. Politics: If you have to do something like that, doesn’t it give you pause about signing on? Dunn: Yes, it can, because obviously it’s going math is changing, and you can’t afford to just write off states. The powerful effect of the national media was shown in 2004 where you had the Swift Boat Veterans doing national cable and you had national media being done full scale for the first time since 1988. And the spot markets get so cluttered that it’s hard to know what you’re actually buying in some of these markets. So people will look more at national buys. Politics: As you look at how this year’s presidential race is unfolding, is there anything that could make you say, boy, we have a whole new ball game in the way campaigns are waged? Dunn: Everyone will be looking at how Obama to be tougher. But if they’re a good person, and if deep down inside they do have a good reason for running—they’re just insecure—then you can work with them to bring it out. The much more difficult situation is when someone has a very strong conviction about why they’re running and it’s so out of step with the electorate that they actually need to dial that back and talk about something else. I remember one candidate who was largely self-funding a Senate campaign, and he was running primarily on environmental issues. And we had to sit down with him and say, you’re in this race because of the environment, you’re spending your own money because of the environment, but you can’t talk about that. Politics: You’re on record as saying you’d prefer to work for a flat fee. Why? Dunn: I think it takes away the inherent appear- ance of a conflict. For media and direct mail consultants, the ordinary fee structure means the amount of money we make is geared toward volume—how many ads run, how many pieces of mail get sent out. So there’s always an inherent conflict when you are recommending more television, more radio, more mail—you’re making strategic recommendations that also result in you making more money. As you have more and more consultants and more and more ways to reach people, the inherent conflicts will only grow stronger. And campaigns realize this. They’re increasingly moving changed the shape of the electorate in Iowa. Democrats, in particular, are looking for ways to more effectively run field operations. Obama spent a huge amount of money building an extraordinary machine out there in Iowa, and he succeeded in doing what others have wanted to do, which is attract new voters. Everyone will also be looking at the maturation of the Internet both as an organizing tool and a fundraising tool. Campaigns after Howard Dean tended to see it primarily as a fundraising tool. But people now are doing really interesting and intelligent things out there in terms of organizing and also in terms of research and communication. But I think the single most important thing happening in this election is a growing political trend: a move toward a much more libertarian attitude, particularly among young voters. Both parties seem to be ignoring this. Everyone is looking at Ron Paul and remarking on how he’s raising so much money. He is a libertarian, but in classic campaign coverage no one is stopping to ask what that means. What does it mean to be libertarian? Can either party claim them? Is there real potential for a third party, a third way, within the electoral system? After the election, I think this is the big thing that will have people saying, “How could we have missed this?” “It’s difficult when a candidate has a very strong conviction about why they’re running, and it’s so out of step with the electorate that they need to dial that back and talk about something else.” February 2008 Politics 19
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.