If Hillary really cared

“If she really cared about the outcome of Wisconsin, she would’ve campaigned there,” Krauthammer said, calling the millions of dollars she raised over the past week a “fundraising scam” for the Green Party.

Krauthammer said her own candidacy caused Hillary Clinton to lose Michigan and Wisconsin, two of the states– the third of which is Pennsylvania– where Stein is seeking recounts.

If one-fifteenth of the people who supported her in Michigan and one-quarter of those in Wisconsin both voted for Clinton, the former secretary of state would’ve beaten Trump in those states.

He said Stein is the “Ralph Nader of 2016, now cashing in” on her candidacy.”

Read Full Article Here…..

All the Tweets and All the Money Still Can’t Beat a Good Ground Game

In a 21st century world filled with modern technological marvels that spread information far and wide instantaneously, a campaign’s physical ground game is still the surest way for a candidate to win at the ballot box.

During the 2016 primaries, many of the candidates, including Sanders, Trump, and to a degree even Clinton, were forced to accept that their huge rallies and high-tech deliveries were not connecting with the voters in a way that got them to the polls.

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz used almost exclusively the traditional campaigning techniques of television ads, mailers, phone calls, and door-to-door messaging — and outlasted most of the better-funded competition.

The campaigns, learning as they went, started to really see that a blend of ground game and technology were key to winning over voters.

But really, how important is the ground game in politics?

A recent academic journal examined, post mortem, the 2012 election between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney.

These researchers found two key elements in a county-by-county analysis, based on the locations of field offices — that a physical presence did in fact matter, but that the campaign also had to ‘outperform’ the other side’s efforts when challenged in a geographical area.

In a political landscape where battleground states determine the election, this becomes a key element of victory — a physical presence will give the campaign a boost where uncontested and where both campaigns are actively campaigning, it’s the vigor and quality of the campaigning that ultimately wins over voters.

This replicates scholarly literature from post mortem analyses of the 2004 and 2008 elections.

There is evidence that Obama organizers had an understanding of these previous studies, opening an unprecedented total of 786 field offices in 449 counties. The Romney campaign, though warned by several analysts, only copied the field office dispersal of McCain’s 2008 campaign, with 284 field offices in 218 counties.

And the effects of this lop-sided advantage in ground games were overwhelming. At the county level, Romney was simply outperformed by the better ground game of the Obama camp.

In 2016, Donald Trump has dominated the airwaves and technology-driven campaigning. Estimates of his ‘free advertising’ throughout the campaign, mostly reporting on his antics, are in the billions of dollars.

He has taken Republican jet setting to a new level, holding rallies with crowds so large that even rock stars would be envious.

But his ground game is still weak, non-existent in several key battleground states — including the recent closure of his Virginia operations.

When removing all the bluster, if Trump winds up losing, it will be from ignoring the overwhelming evidence that the traditional ground game is the single most important part of the campaigning process.

And why shouldn’t it be?

140-character tweets can only confirm what we already feel — confirmation bias at its worst — but actual phone calls or visits from a live person, able to discuss the issues with anyone willing to talk — that’s the kind of campaigning that adds a personal touch.

We go to political rallies because we already support the candidate — if a scientific poll was taken it would almost certainly show a very small percentage of undecided voters at Clinton or Trump rallies. Rallies create energy in the base — but that energy has to be put to use.

We live in a highly technologically driven web of information, but campaigns are learning, many the hard way, that it’s still person-to-person contact that motivates us to act politically.

Independents, as well, must learn from these studies. Person-to-person ground games are essential — motivating others to put their energy into contacting others about your message will do more than millions of dollars worth of television ads.

While the parties have seemingly unlimited money, this is where independent campaigns can dig-in and win, because this type of campaigning is the cheapest there is — often operated wholly by volunteers.

This is going to be a tough mind-set to change for many independent candidates, but it’s the very essence of why independents need a real grass-roots movement to capitalize at the ballot box.

And in the end, this is really what politics ‘should’ be about. Neighbors talking to neighbors about the issues that are important to them — creating the ultimate, unbeatable form of ground game that can propel independents to victory across the political map.   View Original Article Here

Facebook: Business Ad for GOP Candidates ‘May Shock, Offend or Upset’

My friend Chuck Warren ran an ad for his company on Facebook. Chuck is a businessman with decades of political experience. His clients include Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), Carly for America, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, and Senator Ted Cruz’s super PAC, Keep the Promise.

Nothing really edgy.

The ad he bought on Facebook is for campaign services targeted to folks running for office — strictly a business ad, no preaching or issues mentioned.

Facebook slapped a warning on it saying it had “graphic content” that “may shock, offend or upset” viewers.

Here’s the warning:


Here’s the video:

Read Full Article Here…..

Mike Pence to try to beef up anemic fundraising in Utah swing

Republican vice-presidential nominee Mike Pence arrives in Utah Thursday to raise campaign money for a GOP ticket that has struggled to draw dollars from the Beehive State as many major Utah donors have, thus far, been watching from the sidelines.

Pence, the governor of Indiana, is scheduled to speak at Sen. Mike Lee’s third annual Utah Solutions Summit about the role higher education can play in meeting the demands of the workforce. Lee was a backer of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and has not endorsed the Trump-Pence ticket. He — along with U.S. Rep. Mia Love, Gov. Gary Herbert and Lt. Gov Spencer Cox — did not join a letter signed by other Utah elected officials this week backing Trump’s policies.

At noon, Pence is scheduled to speak at a $10,000-per-person lunch hosted by Scott Keller, a prominent real estate investor and major bundler for Mitt Romney’s two presidential campaigns. Earlier in the campaign, Keller also hosted fundraisers for Ohio Gov. John Kasich and gave money to Cruz, Kasich, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina.

He had not, as of the end of July, given money to Trump’s campaign.  Read More…..

In an unusual election, even Utah could be up for grabs

Utah is the best state to demonstrate the problems besetting Republican Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

A recent study found the state was the third most Republican in the country: The GOP enjoys a 30-point head start in every election. No Democrat running for president has won here since 1964. In fact, the closest any Democrat got there in the past 12 presidential elections was Bill Clinton in 1992, when he lost by 19 points. Mind you, Clinton finished third that year in Utah, behind independent candidate Ross Perot.
Yet given Trump’s unique unpopularity, many in Utah are saying — and acting like — the state could be up for grabs. Even Trump concedes his campaign needs some help, telling a group of Florida evangelical leaders last week that “I’m having a tremendous problem in Utah. Utah’s a different place.”

And this is a different election. In 2012, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won the state by 45 percent, his biggest win anywhere. This time Trump is ahead of Clinton by just 12 percentage points in the latest – Read More…..

Man on a mission: Chuck Warren aims to combat political cyber squatting with dotVOTE

In the political world, Chuck Warren is a warrior on a mission to combat cybers quatting – the purchasing of online domain names for profit, mischief, or worse.

Warren, a prolific fundraiser for Republican politicians and candidates, is managing director and partner at Monolith Registry, the registry for the .VOTE domain. He has partnered with www.afilias.info – the second-largest domain registry in the world – to create an online venue for real information about real candidates and elected officials.

“There are a lot of tricksters out there,” he said in a recent phone interview with MassLive / The Republican.

Warren’s banking on .VOTE and its Spanish cousin, .VOTO, to reduce domain name confusion by creating an easily recognizable Internet space where voters can find reliable information about candidates and politicians. The nonpartisan sites are available to all candidates from all political parties, according to Warren.

“Your name, your politics, your official .VOTE domain name,” the website says.

There are plenty of high-profile tales about politicians who don’t own the Internet domains bearing their own names, which has led all sorts of confusion and devilment.

Take the case of Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO. The website CarlyFiorina.org doesn’t take Internet users to her campaign website, but rather to a site that states: “Carly Fiorina failed to register this domain. So I’m using it to tell you how many people she laid off at Hewlett-Packard.”

To illustrate the point, the domain owner includes 30,000 frown-face symbols for the alleged number of people Fiorina laid off during her reign at HP.

Fiorina isn’t the only public figure to get cybersquatted. It’s also happened to Charlie Baker, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz and Chris Christie. And they’re just a few of the prominent politicians who’ve fallen victim to the high-tech phenomenon.

JebBushforPresident.com is a site pushing same-sex marriage issues, not the political record of the former Florida governor hoping to be our next president. And ChrisChristie.net is a site run by a certified mortgage planning specialist, not the New Jersey governor who’s also running for president.

“This problem is not limited to national candidates; local elected officials in Massachusetts have left themselves open to cybersquatting by not owning their own name,” said Rick Gorka, a communications consultant and former aide to Mitt Romney.

Gorka said .VOTE aims “to prevent cybersquatting by only allowing the real person to register their name. No one else would be permitted to do so.”

For better or worse, cybersquatting is part of the new political landscape, a form of social media warfare that can resemble a never-ending political attack ad. Until someone pulls the plug on a particular domain, that is.

“Both sides do it, of course,” Gorka said, referring to Democrats and Republicans. “It’s all fair game in the wild, wild west of online campaigning,” he added.

Meanwhile, Warren hopes .VOTE will become the online equivalent of “the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for political candidates,” he said. “Like the blue dot on Twitter,” he added. “We just released it a couple of months ago, so it’s going to take a couple of (election) cycles to catch on.”

The .VOTE domain is not just for politicians and political parties, however. States are also using the domain, including Alabama and Arizona, both of which have registered election websites with .VOTE.

“There’s a growing market,” Warren said.

Purchasing domain names is a key way for public figures to keep tabs on their public image, according to ABC News. For example, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg preemptively bought over 400 domain names related to his name, ranging from Mikebloomberg2013.nyc to Bloombergistooshort.nyc, ABC reports.

New .vote domain name meant to cut confusion

ChrisChristie.net is a website run by a certified mortgage planning specialist, not the governor of New Jersey.

CarlyFiorina.org doesn’t take you to the presidential hopeful, but instead says: “Carly Fiorina failed to register this domain. So I’m using it to tell you how many people she laid off at Hewlett-Packard.”

A lot of websites out there use candidates’ names. A lot of them aren’t associated with the candidates. One company is trying to make verifying the official site of a candidate easier by offering a new domain: “.VOTE”.

Read the full article here

How Hillary matches up with Republican candidates in Nevada

A recent poll, by dotVOTE (www.polls.vote) of 857 likely voters in Nevada, shows that Hillary has some work to do in the Silver State. Nevada, an early presidential primary state, has chosen the eventual president in every election going back to 1976, when Nevada voted for Gerald Ford in a narrow loss to Jimmy Carter.

The early survey has Hillary trailing 5 potential republican nominees. She trails Jeb Bush by 3, Scott Walker (the leading Republican candidate in Nevada) by 6, Marco Rubio by 9, Rand Paul by 5 and Ted Cruz by 5. But, with almost a quarter of all likely voters still undecided, these numbers could move quite a bit over the next year.

The poll was conducted the evening of April 15, by IRV technology from a random sample of voters. Geography, party and gender were weighted into the results to improve accuracy, and respondents were screened based on their intention to vote in the 2016 General Election. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.35%, with a 95% confidence interval.

Nevada Presidential head to head Results.


Las Vegas – In a survey of Nevada’s likely primary voters, Scott Walker and Hillary Clinton lead all presidential candidates by wide margins. Walker leads the Republican field nearly 3 to 1, with 26% support.  Bush and Cruz each polled at 9%, Rubio and Paul showed 8% support, while Carson was at 7%, Huckabee at 5% and Christie at 1%. A quarter of the respondents were undecided.

Hillary Clinton comfortably leads the Democratic field with 55% support, while 14% chose Elizabeth Warren. Other potential candidates, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, polled at 3% and the rest of the field was at or below 1%. Just under a quarter (22%) of the respondents were undecided.

In the race for US Senate Republicans overwhelmingly prefer Governor Sandoval. Democrats may quickly find themselves in a two candidate race, led by Representative Dina Titus at 44%, followed by former Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto at 20%, and no other democratic candidate polled above 5%.

The rest of the Republican field for Senate was led by Mark Hutchison with 10%, followed by Bob Beers (7%), Brian Krolicki (6%) and Adam Laxalt (3%).  In the crowded Republican field respondents were asked for a second preference. Mark Hutchins led with 25% of respondents preferring the Lt. Governor as their second choice, followed by Brian Sandoval (17%), Brian Krolicki (10%), Bob Beers (7%) and Adam Laxalt (6%).

The survey was conducted by Silver Bullet, LLC. (www.silverbulletllc.com) on Tuesday, April 7th from a random sample of likely primary voters. The top 8 Republican Presidential candidates were listed in order by the average support in recent national polls. You can see the full results of the poll for Republicans here and Democrats here.

From TedCruz.ca to TaylorSwift.porn: How the golden age of domain-trolling was born

The 2016 race has scarcely begun, and presidential hopeful Ted Cruz already has an image problem.

Typing tedcruz.com into your URL bar returns a black page that says “SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMA” in unequivocal all-caps. Tedcruzforamerica.com redirects to Healthcare.gov. TedCruz.ca confirms that the U.S. senator from Texax was, indeed, born Canadian. Tedcruz2016.com is pretty harmless — a carousel of scenic photos, with the promise that a real site is “coming soon” — but its owner has nothing to do with the Cruz campaign, and who knows what he or she is actually up to.

Never fear, Cruz fans: Your champion did eventually find an open domain name, in the cold and less-trafficked waters of the .org domain.


But the fact that his trolls conquered so much ground speaks to how popular this type of Internet tomfoolery has recently become. And in two short months, it’s going to get even worse: That’s when three of the most controversial new top-level domains — .porn, .adult and .sucks — are released to a merciless public. Taylor Swift already snapped up Web addresses on those domains to make sure no one uses them against her.

But as ICANN, the group that oversees and regulates domains, continues to make more of them available, the Internet is only getting bigger and more troll-able. New domains — .singles, .holiday, .guitars, .buzz, .gripe — have rolled out almost every week since ICANN began this latest round of domain expansion in October 2013. If you’re trying to protect your brand or reputation, good luck: T. Swift may have taylorswift.porn, but that still leaves taylorswift.sexy and taylorswift.pizza.
What is domain trolling, exactly? And how is it even legal? Given the strong anti-impersonation protections that most social networks supply, the ability to register an entire Web site in someone else’s name seems kind of … medieval.

And yet, there’s very little stopping jokesters, investors or less scrupulous entrepreneurs from buying up desirable Web addresses and either holding them for ransom or using them to straight-up troll.

“You can register anything you want in a domain name,” sums up Karl Kronenberger, a partner at the Internet law firm Kronenberger Rosenfeld.

Ihatethewashingtonpost.com? Yep.

Caitlindewey.sucks? Unfortunately.

These rules can vary by domain, of course, since each domain is managed by a different company. (Monolith Registry, the company that manages .vote and .voto, bans deceptive names and swears to vet all site registrants diligently.) And, to be clear, a lot of so-called domainers have legitimate business motives: They buy, develop and “flip” domains the way you would any other asset.


Read the full story at the Washington Post.