AS writes, today:
We can, of course, do both. A campaign that in future took on the Catholic hierarchy for its tolerance of child abuse while denying grown people marriage rights would be a promising start. Ads reminding people of the Mormon church's long, long history of racism would also be salient. We're new to this, and we're learning.Okay, not so obviously.
First, while "we may be new to this", the principals of running a strategic ad campaign are not. Begin by asking, who is our gay Frank Schubert? If one doesn't exist, that's a potential cause for concern, right?
Does there have to be just one? Well, no, but consider also that NOM can leverage their same ads from state-to-state, while state-led counter-efforts do not get to re-use most of their material. It's a cost disadvantage. Not sure how large, but it is one. It's also a time disadvantage, especially when events are moving fast. (New Jersey is trying to put together a campaign, apparently, under the gun).
The rest, I'll shorthand. Personal stories are great! However, as a group, they aren't a series of driving messages, like the opposition has. That may be why they "feel" a little flaccid. There are at least two ways to round out those stories with hard hitting rebuttal, focusing on pitfalls of the oppositions ideas (negative implications that they ignore-safe harbor for hate, education they ignore, the gay kids, etc.) as well as a direct refutation (e.g. one-man-one-woman is not scriptural, their Christian message is unbalanced, their anxiety exaggerated, etc.), raising doubt that they are manipulating by not telling the truth about matters, etc.
What to say, exactly? Well, it would do to have some focus groups in Maine, and to do some exploration of how and why people voted the way they did, to see what information or implications they swallowed from "Yes on 1" and what information, had they had it, might have changed their mind. It's possible that most people did not get their opinion from advertising, enough that maybe even the margin that did is insignificant...
Of course, it doesn't do any good if such information exists, but is confined to the hallowed halls of one organization or cabal. protecting their livelihood or whatever else, either...
Finally, too much negativity, at least in election politics, puts down voter turnout. It has to be a honed, targeted message. People won't show up to vote 'mormons are historically racist', as a general proposition.
