No Message No Marriage Part 1 – What the No-On-8 Campaign Didn’t Learn from the Obama Machine
November 6, 2008 by Johnny California
Filed under Ballot Propositions
We here at Johnny California were No-on-8ers and we are disappointed in the result, even though we knew after seeing Friday’s pol before the electionl that it was looking grim.
As far as we can tell, it’s not so much that the “Yes-On-8″ campaign won, but the “No-On-8″ campaign lost. They lost because they confused swing voters with their inconsistent message, spent all their money on TV ads rather than street-level organizing (“ground game”) and instead of trying to win an election they went into “activist” mode and declared war on religion.
The Message Problem
President-Elect Obama’s campaign message was simple, memorable, and completely effective, because it was completely true: “John McCain voted with George W. Bush over 90% of the time. John McCain is four more years of George W. Bush.”
The No-On-8 campaign had three messages: 1) Prop 8 strips people of civil rights that were already granted to them, 2) Gays and lesbians deserve equal rights, 3) Same Sex marriage will not be taught in schools.
Message #2 is far too divisive and played into the Yes-On-8s assertion that same-sex marriage was part of a “vast gay conspiracy.” Message #3 was a defensive move on an issue that turned out to be a red herring (turns out only 23% of voters were worried about the effect same sex marriage would have on education).
This means that the winning message, not only by elimination but because it was the best message, is #1 – the civil rights argument. It should have been the only message, especially since it requires a bit more explaining than most broad, talking-point-ready campaign themes.
To effectively push the civil rights argument, the opposition campaign needed to explain to voters that there’s a difference between approving of gay marriage and stripping someone of their civil rights that have already been upheld by the state. No-On-8 made this argument well at first. The first TV ads, funded by the official No-On-8 campaign employed this strategy.
The problem was that those ads were running against ads put by another group called “Equality California.” These ads did away with the civil rights argument in favor of a “gay and lesbian rights” argument. This confused matters. There were now two messages out there: One that said that No-On-8 is not about same-sex marriage but about civil rights, the other said that No-On-8 is about same-sex marriage in that gays and lesbians deserved equality in marriage. This was the beginning of the end.
The wheels really fell off when the Yes-On-8ers started their “same sex marriage taught in schools” campaign; this lead to the No-On-8 campaign running counter-ads and counter-PR on the education issue. But the Equality California group was still talking about “gay and lesbian equal rights for marriage” and running those ads.
Now there were three messages: 1)” No-On-8 is not about gay marriage, it’s about protecting a minority groups’ civil rights.” 2) “No-on-8 is about gay marriage, because it’s about equality for same-sex couples.” 3) “Don’t worry, we won’t teach your kids about same-sex marriage in schools.”
This problem was compounded by Barack Obama’s gift to the Yes-On-8 campaign: His repeated statements that he believes that “marriage is between a man and a woman.” With his opposition to same-sex marriage bans excised from his statements, the message to voters, especially to African-Americans got even more muddled (as we discussed in a recent post about a Yes-On-8 Obama mailer targeted to African-Americans).
Why weren’t the No-On-8 campaign and Equality California working together to send out a unified message? Somebody needed to bring these groups together and get them in line with one consistent theme. When the Yes-On-8 started their “education argument”, both coalitions should have worked together to put an internal poll in the field and figure out whether the argument was getting any traction. Perhaps they would have found out much sooner than the Friday before the election that nobody really cared.
So where was the leadership? Or as we like to ask around here lately, where was the California Democratic Party?To find out, you’ll have to read the next page…
Johnny,
You are right on the money about the need to work with and not against religious people. It is part of the Christian belief that all people are created equal in the eyes of God. I was a soft yes, who became very unsettled by the attacks on the Mormon Church.
Reply
I’m not sure I agree that the education issue was a red herring…..as someone with many Republican relatives (none in California, so their votes didn’t matter) I know this is a big issue for many of them. And as stated above, it mattered to 23% of voters. I’m surprised it’s referred to as “only” 23% in this post. That’s a fairly substatial number, especially when considering Prop 8 passed by such a narrow margin.
Reply
Johnny California Reply:
November 6th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
We believe that those 23% were solid Yes On 8ers and nothing was going to convince them to vote No. The education issue was not the decisive issue, it was just one of the issues that was important to them.
We contend that the opposition campaign would have been better off taking the focus off countering the education argument and focusing more on making inroads among the 70% of African Americans and 53% of Latinos, the vast majority of whom voted for Obama but voted Yes-On-8.
Demographically and statistically, there was more room among those voters to turn “soft yes” to “no.”
Reply
You’re a little off on the analysis here — there was message confusion on the No on prop. 8 side, evident in even the basics — they undertook a redesign of the web site late in the campaign and adopted a new tagline, new colors, etc.
However, if you look at the leadership of the campaign — No on 8 and Equality California are pretty much one and the same. Who they employed as strategists did change over the course of the campaign, though.
Reply
Johnny California Reply:
November 6th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Good point about the late-in-campaign redesign of No-On-8s website and change of tagline (“unfair”, “unecesarry”, “wrong”). That definitely added to the confusion.
Even though No On 8 and Equality California may have been under the same umbrella and shared “top-level” leadership, the two organizations did have different strategists (as you point out), we didn’t address that because out blog posts get too long as it is! The net effect, and our larger point, is that the two camps were sending out inconsistent messages to the public. Next time, we suggest a firm hand at the top! CalDems…helllooooo?
Reply
Did anyone look at the word “marriage” as a deal-breaker? I know that some of my conservative relatives are in favor of civil unions, but opposed to calling it “marriage” unless it’s between a man and a woman. I suspect some of the soft yeses would have voted no if the language called for “civil unions” instead of “marriage.”
Reply
I agree with Heather on both counts. I am a Calif voter and one
of my big objections was the term “marriage”. I am
certainly in favor of equal civil rights, but to me calling it a marriage
is ridiculous (union, partnership, etc are fine). By the same
token, I do not consider a gay union a “marriage” and I feel
strongly that this alternative life-style should not be taught
in schools.
Reply
Barry Wendell Reply:
November 7th, 2008 at 1:49 am
I’m sorry, Nina, but you are the problem. We got married November 1 to beat the deadline, and it is exactly a marriage, not any other term you choose to use. Why do you think you get to choose what we call our union? And you are way too late about schools – all the kids know about gay issues – all those Yes on 8 TV ads told them all about it.
You are not in favor of equal rights if we can’t be married. Saying you are makes you a hypocrite.
Reply
Joel Reply:
February 26th, 2009 at 1:12 am
Barry, here is where you (and the equality California campaign) are wrong. Gay marriage is NOT about equal rights. Here’s why:
I am straight. I cannot marry another man. I may, if I want to, marry a woman.
You are gay. You cannot marry another man. You may, if you want to, marry a woman.
So under the law, you and I are treated exactly the same, regardless of being straight or gay. That is the definition of equality!
Resorting to sound logic instead of name calling might help you next time.
Reply
Wow Joel,
I’m in awe. The civil right we are talking about here is the right to marry the person you LOVE. It’s about love.
How would your argument sound to you, if we lived in a world where only same sex couples were allowed to marry and you were patted on the head and told it was completely fair because the second you wanted to marry a man, you could do it?
Reply
Joel Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 6:41 am
I am pleased that my comment put you in awe!
And that sounds nice, but I think it is clear that the right in question is that of homosexuals to have their unions legally recognized as a marriage, and not a broad right of individuals to marry whoever they love without any regulations.
My argument would sound just as good to me in your hypothetical world because my argument, and the logical principles behind them, are exactly the same.
But lets stick to Earth: I and the woman I am deeply in love with cannot enter into a registered domestic partnership. Domestic partnerships recognize homosexual unions. However, the second I want to enter into a domestic partnership with a man, I can do it. Just like gay people! Sounds perfectly fair to me.
Reply
Alright, I agree that there were several different messages. HOWEVER, the No on 8 Campaign was run by the “Equality for All” coalition. This coalition’s main member was Equality California. The leadership of Equality California RAN the No on 8 campaign for tthe most part.
Upon realizing that the support for Prop 8 increased, the No on 8 campaign CHANGED its message (from ‘equal rights for all’ to ‘unfair & wrong’). Just pointing that out…
Reply