GOP Prez Candidates Vastly Outspend Dems On Direct Mail
Here's some more revealing information buried in this week's campaign finance reports:
It turns out that the top Republican presidential candidates spent way, way more on direct mail – in fact, almost twice as much -- as their Democratic counterparts this quarter.
The vast amounts the candidates spent on direct mail so early are eye-opening – yet another sign of the unusually early intensity of this contest, as well as of the huge sums of cash that are sloshing through it. Mitt Romney, the top spender, shelled out an astonishing sum, nearly $4 million on direct mail, more than half a year before the first votes will be cast.
Here's the rundown, according to FEC data, on what the top candidates spent on getting out their message the dead-tree way:
1. Mitt Romney: $3,975,568 2. Rudy Giuliani: $2,504,426 3. John McCain: $2,390,227 4. Barack Obama: $1,922,033 5. Hillary Clinton: $1,513,153 6. John Edwards: $1,240,073We've got some more interesting little nuggets of info about the candidates' direct-mail expenditures after the jump.
- Giuliani paid $1.9 million to Texas firm Olsen & Shuvalov, which began it's life as Rove & Co., though Karl Rove, George Bush's top political adviser, sold his ownership long ago. Giuliani was the only candidate to hire Olsen & Shuvalov.
- Mitt Romney spent $1.2 million on printing and postage in New Hampshire alone and an additional $350,000 in nearby Massachusetts.
- Romney also spent the most of all the candidates, $1.4 million, on lists, followed by John McCain with $685,000 and Hillary Clinton with $387,000. It's possible, of course, that other candidate's expenditure on lists are hidden through subcontracting.
- Romney purchased lists from the City of Portsmouth ($200), the State of New Hampshire ($1,179), the Atlantic List Company ($487,724), Newsmax.com ($22,000), the Republican Party of Florida ($100,000), and Jim Talent for Senate ($2,228). Talent was a member of Romney's presidential exploratory committee.
- Rudy Giuliani also paid $100,000 to the Florida Republican Party for list rental while John Edwards paid $5,000 to the Florida Democratic Party.
- Hillary Clinton paid for lists from the New Hampshire Democratic Party ($1,300), the Nevada Democratic Party ($10,000), and the Iowa Democratic Party ($100,000).
The GOP has been highly successful in its direct mail efforts over many years. I think the Dems still have yet to catch up, although in some ways they are leaping forward onto the internet, but there are still many people who are not going to be reached or donate over the internet.
I think direct mail may actually go some way toward explaining the 30% or so of the population that seem to be GOP dead enders. They probably get a lot of their information through these mailings, perhaps supplemented with Fox News and/or AM radio talk. I'm sure all of these sources indicate that everything is hunky-dory except for whatever terrible things Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Hillary Clinton are trying to do.
We should be mailing all voters in every contest, with a targeted message to each voter, including facts aimed at GOP voters/leaners to counter the propaganda they receive from other sources. As the GOP knows, it's important to get around the media "filter" and take your message directly to the voters.
July 20, 2007 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who is now represented in Congress by winger extraordinaire Peter Roskam, I can tell you that direct mail works, even if the mail literature is laughable in its claims.
July 20, 2007 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP... building bridges to the 20th Century.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
July 20, 2007 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
These appeals by direct mail are to the dedicated base of the Republican Party. This indicates that they are very concerned about losing their foundation, which would be a disaster in the next election.
This is also an indication that the Republican Party does not have the same confidence in the new medium, the Internet, that the Democrats have. The Internet is the equivalent of what "talk radio" was to the Republicans in the 1990's. However, talk radio is in decline, mostly due to the drug problems and moral deficiencies of Rush Limbaugh, the one-time star of the far-right.
Whether or not these direct mailings will work will be determined in the next campaign contribution listings. If the Republicans stay flat and do not catch up to the Democrats in contributions, that could indicate that their Party is indeed in trouble. If they cannot motivate their base and if they have given up on the Internet, they are not in a good situation.
July 20, 2007 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also imagine the GOP outspends Democrats on teletype and dictaphone communications, too.
As I say... The GOP - Building bridges to the 20th Century.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
July 20, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a fundraising device, well-constructed direct mail is still some small multiple number of times more productive than well-constructed email, on similar-sized lists.
Also, you can build and maintain bigger, better and fresher lists on direct mail.
Email has the apparent advantage of near-zero incremental unit costs, but that's largely an illusion.
Email and other electronic solicitations can complement direct mail, and vice versa, but hardopy mail is still king of the hill.
July 20, 2007 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much of the core GOP belongs to groups which don't participate actively in the political discourse. Even if they do have computer access they are unlikely to be reading blogs or news sites.
Rove is a genius at reaching this sector and the GOP has categorized all the voters to a much higher degree than the Dems. They can thus send out targeted messages (even libelous ones) with good effectiveness. Those being smeared aren't even aware of the attacks since they never see the mailings.
The Dems (and their online supporters) tend to overestimate the penetration of technology into the general population. This is why TV still remains the preferred medium. Direct mail is cheaper and more effective for the audience it is intended to reach.
The Dems need to wake up about this before they find themselves reeling from invisible punches.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
July 20, 2007 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have any data to back this up?
July 20, 2007 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most interesting thing to me here was Romney's $1.2M in print and postage for New Hampshire. Is it just me, or is that an awful lot for a single state? I'd like to know what the message was on those mailings, because New Hampshire's getting inundated.
An AP poll taken on the 17th (here) shows Romney with a 14 point lead on Guliani in New Hampshire. I'd be interested to know when he sent the mailings; this poll seems to indicate that he gained this lead mostly between April and May, and maintained the high margin after a debate in early June. Were the mailings the beginning of Mitt's big numbers?
July 20, 2007 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You underestimate the effectiveness of direct mail.
July 20, 2007 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!!!!
July 20, 2007 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to know when they were sent unless someone who received the mailing posts online, which is part of the attraction of direct mail -- it can allow you to fly under the radar. Romney has also run TV ads in NH and was the governor of neighboring Massachusetts, so there are some other factors to be considered.
Troll some of the GOP sites, and you might be able to find out. Is there a GOP-equivalent of TPM Election Central?
July 20, 2007 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, exactly right. His laughably false direct mailings are probably the single best example of direct mail being used for negative progandistic purposes (as opposed to fundraising). The allegations in them damaged Tammy Duckworth, and he squeaked out a totally undeserved win.
July 20, 2007 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might try Red States.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/on_pace_to_lose_the_minority
The head of the NRCC was holding discussion there the other day where he was bragging about their chances of taking back the House. had list of Dem seats he thought were vulnerable.
July 20, 2007 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless you have some research showing the effectiveness of direct mail to change people's minds in relation to political campaigns, I'm afraid I'll remain sceptical of the effectiveness of direct mail other than the purpose of reconnecting to one's own solidly backing base.
For example, I would equate a candidate's direct mail campaign to that of typical business marketing... meaning, it's designed to sell a product (a candidate). Standard marketing research shows only a 1-2% response rate to direct mail marketing in the business sense. Meaning, a company tries to sell a product, it sends out its marketing material, and only 1-2% of recipients respond to order vis-a-vis direct mail.
The big difference between business marketing and political marketing is that consumers generally don't know about a new product in the business sense. People will not have had preconceived notions or prejudices for or against a new product. However, seeing as how during political campaigns people already know the options, and usually have preconceived notions of the candidates, I would imagine a 1-2% success rate of convincing consumers to change their minds on an unknown product would probably become greatly diminished when those preconceptions and political biasness are taken into account.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
July 20, 2007 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Related: Somebody up-column apparently believes online petitions (like Hillary's blast at O'Reilly re JetBlue) are policy-shaping pressure tactics.
Of course, they're list-building (and to lesser extent, microtargeting) devices. They don't do anything about an issue. They give the sponsoring campaign a list of whoever is mad as hell about an issue.
July 20, 2007 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering the 6th District historically votes strongly Republican (Hyde's 16 terms, Bush's 53% vote in 2004, and a Cook Partisan Voting Index score of R +3), I don't see a direct correlation between Roskam winning a measly 51.3% versus Duckworth's 48.7%. If anything, if direct mail had such a strong impact, I would expect Roskam's victory margin to have been much higher.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
July 20, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Romney and Giuliani also have good reasons to be interested in using direct mail to reach voters who live in the sort of right-wing media bubble ohiomeister was talking about about. Neither campaign wants Republican primary voters to know too much about their candidates, considering their past positions on social issues (or past divorces). Those socially conservative voters who respond best to direct mail are least likely to learn about Romney and Giuliani's past positions on abortion and gay partnerships, making them the perfect group for both campaigns to target.
July 20, 2007 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink