Alms for the Pour

Yesterday, I got a fundraising email from the U.S. Senate campaign by Democratic Ohio congressman Tim Ryan.  It began, as these things tend to, with ominous warnings.  (And the boldface is theirs) --

“We have huge news, Robert. This race is a dead heat:

“New polling shows that no matter the matchup, if the race for Ohio’s Senate seat were held today, the outcome would be within single digits. In fact, we’re leading Republican JD Vance by just one point.”

Now, to be very clear, I think Tim Ryan is a good congressman.  He took some hits when he challenged Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House, and ran for president, and neither went well.  But he’s a very good representative, and I think would be a very good senator.

Further, on the Republican side, JD Vance and Josh Mandel are both truly horrific, each battling each other to see who can reach the bottom fastest and then keep digging.  I don’t know the third top contender, Mike Gibbons, nor the other two running, though I can’t imagine any of them getting any more reprehensible, which I don’t think is humanely possible.  Only “as reprehensible” at most – and that standard is so low as to be unlikely.

So, this is an exceedingly important Senate race – and for several reasons.  To give the Democrats a flipped seat, to elect a good candidate, and to keep a gut-sickening fascist out of the Senate.

Which is what made Team Ryan’s fundraising email so annoying. 

To be clear, while I’m singling out the letter from Tim Ryan’s campaign, the point here is all such fundraising letters.  I’m focusing here on his campaign’s letter because I’m interested in this race enough to have actually read the letter, amid the several dozen I get each week.  But still, because I think he is such a good candidate, and his opponents so horrific, it’s all the more reason that I think his campaign efforts not only deserve to be more substantial, but can support such substance.

I absolutely understand that many, if not most – let alone close to all – fundraising emails are annoying, pulling the heart strings, pouring out their worst fears, pouring out an unending stream of requests for more and more donations, pouring it on, hoping to get you to pour out as much money as you can, sometimes even if you can't.  I do get it.  But there are a few hot button things they do that trigger me more than most.  And this hit a bunch of them.  And even if I am in full, deep support of the candidate, and galled by the reprehensibility of his main opponents, such outreach letters bug me all the more because I think they risk being counter-productive.

For instance, the election is not “now,” it’s eight months away.  So, whatever the polls show now – even if he was ahead by 20 points isn’t substantive.  Borderline meaningless.

Furthermore, while saying this poll show that they are only head of JD Vance by just one point -- right “now,” JD Vance is not the leading Republican candidate – in fact, he isn’t even in second place.  He’s in third.  Some polls I’ve seen show him struggling to stay out of fifth place.  (Others do have him a bit closer to second.)  So, the fact that you’re barely ahead of someone who, at the moment, it doesn’t appear you’ll be running against, isn’t substantive either.  Borderline meaningless.

In fact, what this scare-tactic fundraising letter says to me is that, since they’re only singling out JD Vance out, it means that Tim Ryan is polling better against the other candidates.  And not only better, but well-enough to not even mention the others.  That may not be the case – but it’s certainly the impression they’re giving.  And I would suggest it is the case.

Moreover, just because a race is in “single digits,” as they point out to raise your alarm bells, does not even remotely make it, in their words, a “dead heat.”  If a candidate wins by nine points, which is single digits, that’s considered a landslide.  And that you have a clear mandate.

I also give little credence to any reference to polls, including news reports, that don’t mention what poll is giving the results discussed.  The difference between quality level of polls is vast.  Even polls with high-ratings for accuracy can differ greatly.  So, so the poll here in question might be a top-notch one, it might too be one that’s brand new without a record, or has a history of being wrong, or weighted for Republicans.  So, without knowing who did the polling, it too is borderline meaningless.

I know that “scare” tactics can be effective when trying to raise money.  But when you say “We’re in trouble” all the time and for so long, it becomes white noise that has no meaning.  Worse, it also makes it appear that you’re perhaps a bad candidate – which Tim Ryan is not.

And yes, having money is a major advantage to getting your message out.  But if having the most money is what mattered in elections, Jeb Bush might still be president today.  (Sorry, I mean “Jeb!”)  If your message is not getting through, money will help get the word out.  But if the message isn’t being presented well or what voters want to hear, don’t blame the lack of money.  Fix the message as the candidate.

I’m not suggesting that that’s the problem with Tim Ryan’s campaign – or even that his campaign actually has a problem.  Just that all fundraising letters should hold in consideration that those donating money are not the one’s on the ballot, and that fundraisers should put the candidate front and center all the time.

Scaring potential donors does have its impact.  Often great impact.  But being honest about your strengths, your opponent’s weaknesses, where things stand that you can build on or shore up more honest, and clarifying why potential donors should keep supporting the candidate might help you raise even more money.

(At least the letter didn't go in the totally opposite direction and start its pitch with another of my least-favorite hot buttons.  The "Humbly asking for your support" approach.  Because, as much as appreciate and prefer the politeness, there is nothing "humble" about an impersonal, bulk letter mailing "to occupant."  Just because they used my name copied in from an email list doesn't mean there is the slightest idea who it was anonymously sent to. "Politely asking" or kindly, hopefully courteously, thoughtfully or whatever.  But not "humbly."   Besides, it reminds me too much of the oily, villainous Uriah Heep in David Copperfield, who was always obsequiously expressing how "'umble, so 'umble" he was -- before his fraudulent efforts to steal all the money and take over the firm was accomplished...only to happily and unexpectedly be undone by the wonderful Mr. McCawber.  Humble has its place, but not unctuously and not in anonymous bulk mailings.)

I wrote this back to the fundraising pitch letter.  (Well, all except the part about "humble" and Uriah Heep...)  I expect it will have zero effect and likely won’t be read.  But it had two benefits – one, it let me vent, and two, it gave me the bulk of material already written for this article.