The lesson from Bloomberg’s defeat? Making movements beats buying a campaign

Democratic presidential candidate former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg waits to speak at a news conference on Tuesday, March 3, 2020, in Little Havana a neighborhood in Miami. | Brynn Anderson, Associated Press

My experience in local, statewide and national races has convinced me that salaried staff and paid advertising rarely defeat a real grassroots movement.

The past week has proven that in a primary election, money alone cannot buy you a victory. Money can help you develop early name ID, rent field offices, purchase swag for supporters, build a posse and enable the campaign to respond to attacks or promote your brand through paid media. Money seldom sparks a movement. I think that is a good thing.

My experience in local, statewide and national races has convinced me that salaried staff and paid advertising rarely defeat a real grassroots movement.

I do believe there is way too much money in our politics. The Democratic primary stands as exhibit A, B and C. Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg spent more than $500 million in a very short period of time. Interestingly, $500 million is nearly the entire GDP of American Samoa, the only place Bloomberg won on Super Tuesday (even though the Bloomberg campaign only spent about $1,300 on media there).

Meanwhile, the rest of the field has also spent cash an amazing rate. Bernie Sanders has spent $116 million, Pete Buttegieg burned through $100 million and Elizabeth Warren whipped out $90 million. Tom Steyer actually spent more than $20 million of his own money just in South Carolina. More than a dozen other presidential hopefuls raised and spent tens of millions of dollars, each before bowing out.

In a bit of irony, candidates invested huge amounts of time on debate stages and in town hall meetings shouting and complaining about the millionaires and billionaires and attempts by some to “buy” the election. It is a bit hypocritical to denounce the millions of dollars an opponent possesses or has spent while hawking your own website on national television and begging for more donations. Millions of dollars are millions of dollars. Toward the end of failed campaigns, candidates made desperate, eleventh-hour pleas for help to meet the $3 million or $8 million or even $13 million they declared they needed to “continue the fight.”

Billionaires aside, there are countless campaigns for federal, state or local offices that relentlessly chase donor cash — and the strings that come with it — to solve proximate operational problems. It is easy when the bank account is flush with cash to ignore the real problems a candidate or campaign may have.

In my consulting work, I have often noted to executives that cashflow covers a multitude of sins.

Many businesses have ignored fatal design flaws in their products, glossed over gaping holes in sales models, ignored customer complaints, looked past significant overruns in cost of goods or avoided removing ineffective leaders. Why? Because cashflow and bank balances suggested everything was fine. Campaigns are much the same.

Organizing an army of volunteers may not be the most pragmatic way to knock doors, hang signs, gather signatures or make calls to voters. It would be less headache and more efficient to just hire it out. However, particularly in a primary elections, every volunteer who engages in such activities becomes part of the cause and feels that they are part of the potential success story. Citizens not only want to know that their ballot matters to a candidate, but that they matter.

Boot-strapping, skin-in-the-game, sweat-equity can be transformational to volunteers, candidates and campaigns. There is an element within such a campaign that taps into the essence of the American entrepreneurial dream. I have seen grassroots volunteers work around the clock, make incredible sacrifices and do everything to help get their candidate elected. It can be inspiring and life changing.

I have also noticed that the amount of hard work and heavy lifting a candidate is willing to do during the campaign is often a good indicator of how they will govern if elected.

I would take a grassroots movement over a purchased “grass-top” organization six ways to election day.

Some criticized Bloomberg’s record-setting spending as an attempt to buy an election. It clearly didn’t work. Others worried that with salaried staff, paid consultants and no donors, Bloomberg would enter the White House feeling accountable to no one but himself. Neither of these approaches are ideal.

I would take a grassroots movement over a purchased “grass-top” organization six ways to election day.

Much will be discussed and debated about the issue of money in elections in the coming days. Money alone can’t buy an election — it still requires leadership, organization, discipline and vision to inspire volunteers to engage and citizens to vote. That is good for the republic.

It is important for citizens to step up and participate in the political process regardless of their political leanings. It is also important for anyone who would lead — in the White House, state house or city hall — to first lead an army of volunteers.

from Deseret News https://ift.tt/2xf1xfT