"A Good Night?"

The difference between spending on campaigns and building something enduring...

It is fascinating to see the “credit” being passed around. Silicon Valley had a rough primary season, capped by their standard bearer Matt Mahan going down.

We have our thoughts, which are found here.

Beyond Mahan, additional failures were written about publicly.

Politico had a number of pieces on the issue, like this morning’s “spanking” or yesterday’s Tech post-mortem.

So, it was surprising to see today’s Poltitico Playbook PM, which says “tech had a good night?”

They “invested” in mainstream candidates. Two groups, Grow California (Silicon Valley), and the CalChamber’s JobsPAC were in on candidates like Ben Allen and Brian Goldsmith (both of which had support outside these groups). These were good bets frankly.

Their candidates likely go on and win their seats.

So, yes, they got a couple wins.

Here is the lesson though, read David Crane’s cautionary tale about Eli Broad.

The lesson, in a nutshell- just because you got someone elected does not mean they will be able to vote against Power in Sacramento.

Read what Labor is saying in Politico- “working people cannot compete.”

Well, let’s also not forget “working people” in the CTA are getting 40% of the $400 billion budget for their programs, an autopilot of budget dollars that translate into union dues.

They have Power. They have money. The order is purposeful.

Power is the name of the game actually in Politics. It is more valuable than money. It is also much harder to create and importantly, control.

I had lunch today with a “political sage” about all things politics, and the conversation turned to exactly the Power question- what does money buy in Politics?

The answer?

Momentary Power if it is not backed up with something sustainable.

Too many people get into Politics thinking elections are the “goal” and you can spend money to get there. It is wrong (see Tom Steyer and his $200 million on the Gubernatorial as well as another $250 million on President). The road is littered with people who think they can “buy” seats or use money to “win.”

Elections are the result of “enduring movements.” The turn on candidates and quality. They turn on vision and messaging. There has to be a “there” there.

Most importantly, elections turn on votes.

Votes are the currency of Politics, not cash.

Votes are what electeds ultimately have to cash in.

Votes are the “money” which sustain the ability to “stay in the seat.”

Silicon Valley must learn what David Crane is teaching- money without an enduring base is merely money. Their wins are temporary if not reinforced and fast. The reinforcement is not more money, it is more vision. It is the creation of and capture of Power.

Without Power and votes, any politician will tell you what you want to hear to take your money, and then vote against you that afternoon.

Zev Yaroslavsky famously quotes the maxim in his book, Zev’s Los Angeles.

Why does the maxim hold?

Because money will influence the vote of the elected, but money needs to drive the votes of the elected’s constituents. When the votes are driven, then the elected has to be accountable, donations be damned.

What does Labor do so well? They “get out the vote.” They are a force multiplier. It is not only their “cash” (which there is plenty of that too, vows of poverty notwithstanding), it is really their door knocking, their people going to the polls, their people going out to get others to the polls, which is doubly valuable.

The “base” work is boring. It is mundane. It is unsexy. It is the mother’s milk of politics.

To win sustainably, it is about keeping those interests “tethered” to you, and therefore the elected needing you to stay in office.

This dynamic of sustained “tethering,” is why “business” struggles to sustain itself.

They are scattered and myopic- their interests and only their interests. They do not multiply their value (workers are far more numerous than managers). Money gets you there for limited periods. Money can get an issue attention in a session. It is a depreciating asset in the Political Game. You need something different to sustain those investments, as we have argued here repeatedly.

So, I read what the Silicon Valley folks did, and say, “great, now what?” You caught the bus in a sense, but now you need to hang on. Can you? How?

Where is your sustainment? Where way to make it so you can help the elected the way Labor does?

Votes, not money are the true value to the elected, and votes are harder to get.

Votes require deeper investments than a campaign fund, an endowment, or whatever other concept you might have. You have enough to be dangerous, but you have to still “get it right.” You have to spread the “benefits” to ensure your “interests” are protected.

“Good nights” like Tuesday are relative.

So, back to the origins- understand the Game you are in now. People are giving you credit. You have a target on your back. You now need to show why you are able to stay. You need to “run.” Run as fast as you can now. You caught some lightning in the bottle. Now you need to prove you get to stay.

You get a news cycle after all the negatives this week, but the cycle is not backed up yet with “enduring sustainment.”

Remember, “many have tried, and few have succeeded,” to knock off the king (or queen in the case of the California Federation of Labor). You are in a long-term Game with ebbs and flows.

More on a race in as a result of Prop 50 a little later. I find this race in particular intriguing, perhaps my next “Mahan Case Study…”

Which race?

I’m looking at you Kevin Kiley and what you are trying to do.