Presentation brief

Build a member network for the centrist majority

Recruit advocates and community voices who align with our candidates and programs, give them access and distribution support, and measure participation across every level of the election map.

Program promise North star

“Access, context, and amplification for members who champion our candidates and programs in their own words.”

Opt-in

Membership and data collection

3 levels

Local, state, and national

90 days

Pilot to repeatable program

1 record

Unified member profile

Internal planning premise

This document treats “80% of Democrats are centrists” as an internal planning assumption for audience sizing and messaging.

Operating principles

Aligned

Membership and access are for people who champion the candidates and programs we support, in their own voice.

Consent-based

Collect geography, topics, and platform handles directly from participants. Do not infer political beliefs from browsing, race, religion, or private data.

Member-controlled voice

Members choose which supported candidates and programs to champion and write in their own words. Cross-posting and boosting require per-account authorization, clear budgets, and a revocation path.

Member journey: an outreach-led funnel

This program is built on direct outreach — we go to advocates where they already publish. Referrals from existing members are the second engine. Events and inbound applications exist, but they are a small minority of recruitment and are never treated as a growth plan.

Recruitment mix (planning targets)

Direct outreach ~70%

Relationship owners DM and email researched prospects daily per the DM Playbooks. This is the engine — proactive, targetable by geography and issue, and fully measurable.

Member referrals ~20%

Every onboarded advocate is asked for two names at day 30. Referrals convert at 2–3× the cold rate and arrive pre-aligned.

Events & inbound ~10%

Signups at our own events and people who find the program page. Valuable but passive — never forecast growth from this lane.

The eight steps

Discover

Research-driven prospecting (creator databases, platform search, local press) plus member referrals. Events and inbound are supplementary only.

Qualify

Human review for authenticity, community fit, safety, and stated alignment with the candidates and programs the network supports.

Invite

Personal outreach from a named individual's account explaining access, the alignment expectation, and how members use their own voice.

Onboard

Consent, profile, geography, platform authorization, code of conduct, and preferred opportunities.

Activate

Briefings, Q&As, local events, source material, clips, and optional co-posting.

Amplify

Cross-post selected work or boost it with explicit per-post permission and the member's own aligned commentary.

Learn

Capture aggregate reach, participation, message sentiment results, member feedback, and safety incidents.

Retain & refer

Recognize contribution with better access, training, and leadership roles — then ask every satisfied member for two referrals.

Two recruitment targets, one standard

Advocates (established voices)

Consistent publishing cadence and an identifiable audience.
Reached almost exclusively by direct outreach — DM, email, or manager contact.
Offer rapid-response access, production assets, expert briefings, and co-distribution.

Non-activist community members

Left-leaning people who care about an issue — environment, economy, schools — but are not politically active.
Reached by outreach into interest communities and by member referrals.
Offer a low-lift on-ramp: see the Outreach section for the dedicated pitch.

Do not rank people only by follower count

Use a balanced score: audience authenticity, topical relevance, geographic relevance, reliability, conversation quality, safety history, and stated alignment with supported candidates and programs.

Outreach system: personal at the front, disciplined underneath

Every touch lands in the member CRM — options and costs itemized in Software.

Stage	Owner	System action	Human action	Exit criterion
Prospect	Research	Create profile with source and public handles	Verify identity and relevance	No major authenticity or safety concern
Approach	Relationship lead	Assign owner; start consent-safe sequence	Send a specific, personal invitation	Reply or three respectful attempts
Conversation	Relationship lead	Log interests, geography, and constraints	15-minute fit call; confirm alignment	Mutual expectations are clear
Onboarding	Member ops	Capture agreement, preferences, and access tier	Orientation and platform connection	Profile, alignment statement, and consent recorded
Active	Program lead	Match opportunities by declared preferences	Offer access tied to supported candidates and programs	Member accepts or declines
Alumni / pause	Member ops	Stop outreach and revoke tokens as requested	Thank them; preserve a return path	Consent and retention rules applied

First-contact anatomy

Why them: cite one specific public contribution or community connection.
What this is: a member network for people who support the candidates and programs we back; amplification may be funded.
The condition: membership and access are for people who champion those candidates and programs.
What they control: which supported items to champion, what to say in their own words, and whether any post is boosted or cross-posted.
What they receive: briefings, candidate access, peer network, source material, training, and distribution support.
What happens next: a short fit call to confirm alignment.

Two pitches, two audiences

The structure is identical; the hook changes. Advocates respond to access and distribution. Non-activists respond to their issue and a low-lift ask.

Pitch: established voices and activists Advocates

“Your recent work on [specific local issue] helped people understand the tradeoffs without talking down to them. We are building a member network for people who support [candidate/program] and want briefings and occasional candidate Q&As. You always write in your own words and choose what to back. Would you be open to a 15-minute conversation?”

Pitch: issue-first community members Non-activists

“I saw your post about [environment / housing / schools / the economy] — it sounded like it came from actual experience, not talking points. I help run a network of people who care about [issue] and want to actually move it, without becoming full-time political people. Members get plain-English briefings on what's really happening, and occasionally a chance to ask questions directly to the people making decisions. No posting quota, no meetings culture — most members give it an hour or two a month. Can I send you the one-pager?”

Non-activist conversion keys

Lead with their issue, not our candidate. De-emphasize jargon ("advocate," "program," "movement") in the first touch. The ask is "can I send you the one-pager," not a call. Alignment is confirmed on the fit call, not demanded in the first message.

Cadence and service levels

High-touch prospects

Named relationship owner
Personal email or manager contact
Two follow-ups over 14 days
Quarterly relationship review

Community referrals

Warm introduction
Mobile application
Weekly orientation
Local coordinator follow-up

Inbound applicants

Immediate confirmation
Review within five business days
Published criteria
Appeal and reapply path

DM playbooks: who sends what, where, and how

Direct messages are the highest-converting outreach channel and the fastest way to get an account restricted. Every send comes from a named human's account, references something specific, and stops the moment someone declines. Volume caps below are conservative operating limits, not platform-published maximums. Prospect lists and outcomes live in the CRM — see Software.

Roles

Role	Headcount (pilot)	What they do	What they never do
Relationship owner	2–3 staff	Send first-contact DMs from their own personal, named accounts (not the org's brand account — personal outreach converts far better); run fit calls; log every touch	Share logins, rotate accounts to dodge limits, or use automation to send
Member ops	1	Build prospect lists; pre-fill CRM records; also send outreach from their own named accounts when volume requires — every sender is a real, named person	Send from faceless brand accounts or unlogged personal accounts
Program lead	1	Approves target lists and message angles weekly; handles escalations and press-risk conversations	Mass-send
Compliance	0.2 (fractional)	Reviews templates quarterly; approves any boosting language referenced in DMs	Edit messages mid-conversation

How outreach is tracked — the software workflow

Messages are sent by hand from personal accounts, but every touch is tracked centrally. The stack below is what a sender touches each day (full pricing in Software).

Step	Tool	What happens
1. Prospect list	EveryAction (member CRM)	Member ops creates a prospect record: name, handles, geography, issue, source, assigned owner. Owners work from their assigned list only — no freelance prospecting.
2. Before sending	GRIN (advocate CRM)	Owner opens the prospect in GRIN to see recent posts and pull the specific reference for the message. GRIN is the research surface; EveryAction is the record.
3. Send	Native platform app	Owner sends the DM/email by hand from their own named account. No sending software touches the message — this is what keeps accounts healthy.
4. Log	EveryAction via daily log form	Same day: owner pastes the thread URL, message version (A/B template code), and outcome (sent / replied / declined / call booked). A 10-field mobile form takes ~30 seconds per touch.
5. Sync & dedupe	Make (automation)	Nightly job reconciles GRIN activity with EveryAction records, flags prospects contacted twice, and surfaces follow-ups due at day 5–7.
6. Review	Sprout Social inbox + Metabase dashboard	Program lead reviews reply rates by owner, platform, and template weekly; Metabase shows funnel from first touch to onboarded member.

Why personal accounts, centrally logged

Brand-account DMs read as advertising and get filtered; a message from a real person's account with a history and a face converts. The discipline is not the sending account — it is that nothing happens outside the CRM. If it isn't logged in EveryAction same-day, it didn't happen.

Instagram

Best for: advocates and community voices under 100K followers Primary channel

Research first

Member ops assembles 10–15 prospects/day per owner: handle, real name, locale, one specific recent post worth referencing, follower count, and contact alternatives (email in bio, manager).

Warm the account

Owner follows the prospect and leaves one substantive comment on a recent post 24–48 hours before DMing. Cold DMs to non-followers land in Message Requests; prior interaction raises open rates.

Send the DM

From the owner's professional account, 3–4 sentences: specific reference, what the network is, the alignment condition, one ask (a 15-minute call). Max 10–15 new-thread DMs per account per day.

Follow up

One follow-up after 5–7 days with a concrete hook (upcoming briefing topic or event date). A second non-response closes the record as 'no — DM'.

Move off-platform

On any positive reply, offer email or a calendar link immediately. Log handle, thread URL, and outcome in the CRM the same day.

TikTok

Best for: mutual follows and comment-first engagement Constrained

Accept the constraint

TikTok DMs generally require mutual follows. Plan for a comment-first funnel: DM is step three, not step one.

Comment publicly

Owner leaves a substantive comment on the prospect's recent video from the program's or their own account. No pitch in comments — earn the follow-back.

Check bio for off-platform contact

Many TikTok advocates list email or a manager for business inquiries. Email beats DM here; log both attempts.

DM after mutual follow

Once they follow back, send the same 3–4 sentence structure as Instagram. Cap: 10 new threads/day/account.

Escalate larger advocates

Over ~250K followers, route to the program lead for manager outreach by email; TikTok DMs at that tier are noise.

YouTube

Best for: business-inquiry email found on channel About pages No native DM

No DM surface

YouTube retired private messaging. Outreach runs through the channel's business-inquiry email (About tab) or a comment on a recent video.

Pull contact emails

Member ops extracts business emails from About tabs into the prospect list. Channels without one get a pinned substantive comment pointing to the program page.

Email with the same anatomy

Subject: 'Briefings + candidate access — [their topic area]'. Same 4-part body as the DM template. One follow-up at 7 days.

Log source

Record whether contact came from About page, comment, or referral — YouTube-sourced members often need extra orientation on the other platforms.

X (Twitter), Facebook, LinkedIn

Platform	DM access	Playbook	Daily cap / notes
X	Open DMs only if the account allows them; Premium accounts can DM more broadly	Reply substantively to a recent post first; DM only accounts with open DMs or Premium; otherwise @-mention once with a link to the program page	~10–15 new threads/day; rate limits tighten without warning on new accounts
Facebook	Page-to-person DMs only after the person messages the Page first; person-to-person requires friendship	Route prospects to message the program Page via a comment or post link; respond within Messenger from the Page inbox	Meta enforces a 24-hour reply window for Pages — staff the inbox daily
LinkedIn	Connection-required; InMail is paid (~$80–160/seat/mo for Recruiter/Sales Navigator tiers)	Best channel for established activists, operatives, and org leaders — send a connection request with a 2-sentence note, then the standard message after acceptance	Connection notes capped at 300 characters; ~20 requests/day on free accounts

Message anatomy and templates

First-contact DM (Instagram / TikTok / X)

“Hi [name] — your [specific post/video] on [topic] was one of the few takes on this that didn't talk down to people. I run member recruitment for a network that gets community voices briefings and occasional Q&As with [candidates/program leaders]. It's for people who support [candidate/program]. Open to a 15-minute call this week?”

Follow-up (5–7 days, one time only)

“Bumping this once — we're hosting a briefing on [topic/date] and your perspective on [their issue] would be valuable in the room. If it's not a fit, no worries and I won't keep messaging.”

Operating guardrails

Volume

10–15 new-thread DMs per account per day, per platform.
Two contact attempts max, then close the record.
Three owner accounts × 15/day ≈ 900–1,300 first touches/month.

Account health

Named human accounts only — no shared logins, no sending bots, no bought accounts.
A platform restriction or block wave triggers a 48-hour pause and template review.
Never rotate to a second account to evade a limit or a block.

Logging

Every touch logged same-day: platform, handle, thread URL, message version, outcome.
Declines and 'stop messaging' requests are honored everywhere, permanently.
Weekly review: reply rate by platform, template, and owner; kill any template under 5% reply.

Hard rules

No automated sending tools, no scraped follower lists for bulk DMing, no DMs to minors, and no continued contact after a decline. Platform terms restrict unsolicited bulk messaging on every network above — the caps exist to keep accounts in good standing, and legal review covers the templates, not individual messages.

Issue briefings: what members actually receive

This is what a member actually gets: one page, checked facts, a plain-language angle, and two versions of the message so the sentiment tracking can show us which one people respond to. Advocates rewrite it in their own voice; non-activists can forward it or just show up to the meeting at the bottom. Anything in brackets gets filled in for the member's district before it goes out, and someone on staff re-checks the facts within 72 hours of send, because these things move.

How a briefing is built

Research pack

Staff pulls the actual local facts: which utility, which agency, which company, with links to the source documents.

Frame

One sentence that says where we land. The program lead and compliance sign off before anything goes out.

Two versions

One kitchen-table, one accountability. Both are tagged so the message lab in Listening can track which gets better responses.

Localize

Geography routing finds the members who live in the affected district, and the brackets get filled in before send. Nobody gets a generic blast.

One ask

Every briefing ends with one thing to do. Ask for two things and people do neither.

Sample briefing: data centers in Arkansas

What the member gets State level · Arkansas

Quick version: the legislature passed a tax break for data centers in 2025. Now [utility] wants a rate increase to pay for the power plants these facilities need. People are starting to connect those two facts, and they're right to.

Where we land

Data centers are fine. Making Arkansans pay for their electricity isn't. And any deal should be public before it's signed.

The kitchen-table version

A big data center can use as much electricity as tens of thousands of homes. Somebody has to pay to build that capacity. Right now the plan is that it's you, through your [utility] bill.
The 2025 tax break is already law. What's still worth pushing on is basic: how many permanent jobs, what they pay, and what happens when the tax holiday ends.
The biggest facilities also use serious water for cooling, millions of gallons a day at the top end. Arkansas farms. Asking "how much, from where" before construction starts is reasonable.
None of this is anti-data-center. If a project is good for [county], the company should be able to say so in public, with numbers.
If you do one thing, ask [your state rep / quorum court member] this: "If the power money comes up short, who pays, the company or us?" Get the answer in writing.

The harder version

“Your electric bill went up. At the same time, the state gave some of the richest companies on earth a tax break to come use even more electricity, and it didn't ask them to pay for the grid upgrades first. You're allowed to be annoyed about that.”

One thing to do

Post it in your own words this week, or send it to three people you know in the district. If you want to go further, the [public service commission / quorum court] hearing is [date]. Link is in the portal.

Sample briefing: clean water in Michigan

What the member gets State level · Michigan

Quick version: Michigan has the strictest lead-pipe law in the country. Every lead service line in the state has to be replaced by 2041, and federal infrastructure money is covering a lot of the cost right now. The open question is whether small towns get their applications in before the money runs out.

Where we land

Nobody is pro-lead. The fight is over speed and money. Either the state and the towns hit the deadline or they let it slide, and letting it slide is a choice.

The kitchen-table version

Benton Harbor replaced every lead line in its system in about a year and a half. It's doable when somebody is actually in charge of it.
The Flint lesson wasn't only the water. It was a year of residents saying something was wrong and being told they were wrong. The standard now is simple: trust the water when the test results are public.
There's federal money for pipe replacement, but towns have to apply. Whether yours gets any comes down to whether your local officials filed the paperwork. Worth an email to find out.
PFAS is the next version of this fight. The forever-chemical contamination around [Rockford / Oscoda] has been sitting there for years.
Every year a lead line stays in the ground is another year of risk and a bigger repair bill later. Waiting is the expensive option.

The harder version

“It's been more than a decade since Flint, and there are still Michigan kids drinking from lead pipes because replacing them was always in next year's budget. The state only moves when there's a deadline and a fine attached. That's what this law is.”

One thing to do

Share one of the points above in your own words, or bring it up at your next city council or school board meeting. Meeting links are in the portal.

Why it's set up this way

The version tags feed the sentiment tracking in Listening, so after a few cycles we know whether the kitchen-table or accountability version actually moves people, instead of guessing. Routing by district comes from Geography; the source pack lives in the portal (Circle) and the briefing goes out by email/SMS from the CRM (EveryAction), both priced in Software. Members pick what they want to use and write it their own way. We don't hand them scripts.

See the conversation—within real platform limits

There is no lawful universal firehose

APIs expose different slices of public activity. Private accounts, stories, deleted content, many like identities, and untagged references can be unavailable. Treat listening as incomplete evidence, not total surveillance. Vendor options and pricing for every row below are itemized in Software.

Channel	What to collect	Preferred method	Important limit
Instagram	Owned-post comments and metrics; tags; supported @mentions	Meta webhooks and Instagram APIs for professional accounts	Private content and some story/mention surfaces are unavailable; metrics may be delayed
TikTok	Authorized advocate videos; public references found by approved listening tools	Advocate authorization plus vetted social-listening vendor	General comment access is restricted; Research API is not a normal campaign CRM feed
YouTube	Video/channel comments, replies, counts, and owned-channel moderation	YouTube Data API with OAuth for owned actions	Quota applies; comment threads may require extra calls for all replies
Other networks	Public mentions, owned-post engagement, and authorized account data	Official APIs or policy-compliant vendor connectors	Coverage changes frequently; document each connector's terms
Web/news/podcasts	Named references, links, transcripts, and coverage	Media monitoring plus manual verification	Automated sentiment is directional and error-prone

Data flow

Ingest

Webhooks first; scheduled API pulls second; manual URL submission as a fallback.

Normalize

Map platform, post, author, timestamp, engagement counts, and relationship to the program.

Match

Match only known members and declared handles; keep uncertain identities unlinked.

Triage

Route questions, misinformation, threats, member support, and candidate requests to separate queues.

Respond

Human approval for political replies; preserve an audit trail and platform-native context.

Dashboard views

Relationship inbox: all known member posts and direct mentions requiring a response.
Content performance: reach and engagement for authorized/cross-posted content, split organic versus boosted.
Message lab: post-level and response-level sentiment by message variant (see below).
Coverage gaps: geography and topic combinations with no active members—never inferred ideology.
Audit view: consent, boost authorization, spend, token access, and retention status.

Message sentiment program

Every piece of program content carries a message-variant tag (e.g. positive framing vs. contrast framing). The listening stack scores sentiment on the post and on the response comments, so we can see which framing moves each audience. This is aggregate message testing on our own content — standard practice in Sprout Advanced and Brandwatch, both itemized in Software. We do not build covert political-affinity scores on individuals.

Post-level sentiment: tone of the member's own content by variant, topic, and platform.
Response-level sentiment: ratio of positive to negative replies per variant, per audience segment.
Weekly readout: which framings earn constructive replies vs. backlash, by geography and issue.
Decision rule: a variant must win on response sentiment AND completion/engagement to graduate.

Exclusive meetings: deter leaks; never promise prevention

Any attendee can use a second phone, screen-capture hardware, or handwritten notes. Design the event so a leak is less likely, identifiable where possible, and not catastrophic if it occurs. Platform options and pricing are in Software.

Authenticate

Named attendee and unique access

Watermark

Visible and audio deterrence

Minimize

No truly secret campaign material

Meeting types and sensitivity tiers

Not all exclusive meetings carry the same risk. Set controls by tier, not by habit — over-securing a lobbyist briefing wastes goodwill, and under-securing a planning session hands the opposition our playbook.

Type	Example	Sensitivity	Required controls
Candidate meet-and-greet	Advocates ask questions; candidate answers	Medium — assume anything quotable travels	Authenticated join, watermark, ground rules, publishable recap
Lobbyist / policy briefing	A lobbyist explains how they move an issue; members learn the mechanics	Low–medium — educational content, few secrets	Authenticated join, watermark; recap shareable at staff discretion
Activist strategy exchange	Peer advocates compare what is working in their communities	Medium — tactics are reusable by opponents	Authenticated join, watermark, no cloud recording, notes not distributed
Planning session	Staff + core members set targeting, budgets, timing, message sequencing	Highest — this is what the opposition most wants	Smallest viable invite list, in-person preferred, virtual only with watermark + no recording, verbal decisions, no circulated deck

Planning sessions are the crown jewels

Candidate remarks embarrass; planning documents arm the opposition. Treat every planning session as if a Republican tracker is trying to attend — opposition trackers exist and this is exactly what they look for. Verify each attendee by name at entry, keep strategy verbal where possible, and distribute decisions afterward only as need-to-know action items, never as a full plan.

Technical controls

Control	Implementation	What it accomplishes	Residual risk
Identity	SSO or one-time link, named registration, waiting room, manual approval	Reduces link sharing and anonymous entry	Credentials can still be shared
Event mode	Webinar/town-hall mode; attendee cameras/mics off until promoted	Limits disruption and participant visibility	Does not stop external recording
Recording controls	Disable participant local recording and cloud recording; restrict third-party bots	Removes ordinary in-app recording paths	OS capture and second devices remain
Watermarking	Participant-specific visual watermark; supported audio watermark	Deters leaks and can help attribute them	Cropping, transcription, and paraphrase remain
Information design	Assume remarks may become public; embargo only time-sensitive materials	Lowers harm if content escapes	Reduces candor unless format is carefully facilitated
Policy	Short event rules, confidentiality terms where appropriate, graduated sanctions	Sets expectations and response options	Enforcement and local law vary

Candidate meet-and-greet run of show

T−72 hours: verify roster; issue unique links; remind attendees of event rules.
T−15 minutes: lock production roles; test watermark; admit authenticated attendees only.
Opening: one-minute ground rules; explain whether remarks are on the record, embargoed, or not for publication.
Discussion: moderated questions submitted in advance plus live queue; no donor preference.
Close: provide approved factual resources, corrections channel, and an optional public recap.
T+24 hours: attendance log, incident review, member feedback, and access revocation for no-longer-valid links.

Safer access model Recommended

Private questions, public-safe answers.

Let members ask candid questions in a controlled room, but brief candidates to answer as if the exchange could become public. Provide a publishable recap afterward so members gain real value without carrying “secret” material.

Zoom supports authenticated attendance plus visible and audio watermarking, but even these controls cannot prevent external recording.

Segment by election jurisdiction and declared relevance

Use the smallest relevant electorate

A city-council race should not trigger national outreach. Match opportunities using self-reported home/served geography, platform audience geography available with consent, and declared topics—not inferred ideology or protected traits.

Critical mass: how many advocates move a cohort

Working definition: a cohort is meaningfully influenced when at least 25% of target Democratic voters in it are reached 3+ times per month by advocate content (organic or boosted). The model below converts that threshold into advocate counts. Assumptions: average advocate reaches ~3% of their follower base per post locally (higher trust, tighter geography), falling with audience scale; ~40% audience overlap is discounted; boosting extends a post's reach 3–5×.

Level	Example cohort	Target Dem voters	25% × 3+/mo means reaching	Advocates needed (organic only)	Advocates + boosting
Local	City council district, school board, county race	~8,000–25,000	~2,000–6,000 people repeatedly	15–30 local advocates (avg 5K–15K local followers each)	8–15 advocates + $3K–$8K/mo boosting
State	Governor, state legislature, ballot measure	~1M–4M	~250K–1M people repeatedly	150–300 advocates across regions	75–150 advocates + $40K–$120K/mo boosting
National	Presidential, national issue campaigns	~35M–50M (base universe)	~9M–12M people repeatedly	2,500–4,000 advocates	800–1,500 advocates + $500K–$1.5M/mo boosting

These are planning ratios, not guarantees

The 25%/3+ threshold is a campaign-media rule of thumb (message penetration at effective frequency), not a measured constant. Validate against pilot data: the Listening section's dashboards measure actual unique reach and frequency per cohort, and the Cost Model sliders let donors see what each tier requires. Adjust advocate counts quarterly as real reach-per-advocate data comes in.

How the approach differs by level

Level	Program owner	Member pool	Typical access	Content support	Approval
Local	City/county coordinator	Residents, local advocates, neighborhood and issue voices	Site visits, local candidate Q&A, community roundtables	Local facts, event clips, location-aware cross-posts	Local lead + compliance guardrails
State	State network director	Statewide advocates plus local members with state issue relevance	State candidate briefings, legislative explainers, regional press access	State issue kits and coordinated publishing windows	State lead + legal/compliance
National	National program office	National advocates and selected state/local members	National candidate town halls, policy experts, convention access	National source library, broadcast clips, optional boosting	National editorial ops + legal/compliance

Routing logic

Start with election jurisdiction: precinct/municipality, district, state, or nationwide.
Filter to members who explicitly selected that geography or whose public work clearly serves it.
Filter by declared topic preference and format capability.
Apply frequency caps and conflict rules so members are not flooded.
Relationship owner reviews the list before invitations are sent.

Federated operating model

National: owns platform, security, brand standards, vendor contracts, and common metrics.
State: owns candidate calendar, state compliance, regional partnerships, and escalation.
Local: owns relationships, context, event logistics, and feedback loops.
One profile follows the member; access and data visibility follow least-privilege rules.
Local teams can nominate; higher tiers cannot silently repurpose a member for another race.

Conflict rules to encode

Residency

Is the person eligible or genuinely relevant to this jurisdiction?

Candidate neutrality

If the program is pre-primary, offer comparable access under a written policy.

Frequency

Cap asks by week and honor “no campaign outreach” preferences.

Data boundary

Do not expose full member records to every campaign or local chapter.

Software stack: options and costs by capability

Pricing verified August 2026 from vendor list prices and procurement-data aggregators (Vendr, StackScored, ITQlick). Quote-only vendors show reported contract ranges. All figures are USD; annual billing assumed where it lowers the rate.

Member CRM — system of record

Vendor	Entry price	Realistic cost for this program	Notes
Action Network	$15/mo entry	$300–$900/mo at program scale	Purpose-built for advocacy; email/mobile volume drives cost; fast to launch
EveryAction	$99/mo entry	$500–$1,000/mo (10 users); $8K–$22K first year with onboarding	Bonterra-owned; strong email + fundraising; custom fields for geography, consent, relationship owner
NGP VAN	$45/user/mo	$5.4K–$20K+/yr depending on scale; state-party licenses can be one-time fees	The Democratic standard; voter-file integration is the reason to choose it; requires DNC/state-party relationship
NationBuilder	$34/mo entry	$3.5K–$12K/yr with add-ons	Cheapest credible option; weaker for complex consent and multi-team permissions
Salesforce + NPC	$60–$100/user/mo (P10 discounted)	$15K–$60K/yr all-in with implementation	Maximum flexibility; requires admin/consulting budget ($10K–$40K setup); overkill for a pilot

Recommendation

Pilot on EveryAction (~$6K–$12K first year). Migrate to NGP VAN when voter-file matching becomes a requirement, or stay if the program stays pure-membership. Action Network is the leanest credible start (~$4K/yr).

Advocate discovery and relationship management

Vendor	Pricing	Advocate scale	Notes
GRIN Lite	$399/mo ($4,788/yr) — published	15 advocates / 50 CRM contacts	Only transparent pricing in category; month-to-month; 30-day trial
GRIN Essentials → Growth	$699–$1,149/mo ($8.4K–$13.8K/yr)	100–200 advocates / 1K CRM	Content library, payments module (unused here — program is unpaid), approvals
GRIN Complete	$1,799/mo ($21.6K/yr)	400 advocates / 4K CRM + API	API access needed for CRM sync; team roles and permissions
Aspire	Quote only; reported $24K–$72K/yr	Mid-market	Strong discovery database (170M+ profiles); DTC-commerce orientation is a mismatch for political use
CreatorIQ	Quote only; reported $36K–$120K+/yr + $8K–$25K implementation	Enterprise	Best-in-class for 200+ advocate programs; political-use terms need review; 12-month minimum

Recommendation

GRIN Growth at $1,149/mo covers a 200-advocate pilot with room to grow, and it is the only option you can buy this week without a sales cycle. Its payment features go unused — the value is discovery, vetting, and the advocate CRM. Defer CreatorIQ until the network exceeds ~400 active advocates.

Social listening and engagement

Vendor	Pricing	What it covers	Limits for this use case
Sprout Social Professional	$299/seat/mo annual ($399 monthly)	Publishing, Smart Inbox, IG/FB/X competitor reports, paid-social reporting	3 seats = $897/mo ($10.8K/yr); Listening add-on priced separately (~$999+/mo)
Sprout Advanced	$399/seat/mo annual	Sentiment in inbox, spike alerts, API access, helpdesk integration	3 seats = $1,197/mo ($14.4K/yr); required once the message sentiment program starts
Meltwater	Quote; reported $15K–$80K/yr (median contract ~$25.8K)	Social + news/broadcast/print monitoring in one tool	Annual contract only; onboarding $2K–$10K; API gated to enterprise tier
Brandwatch	Quote; reported $36K–$100K/yr (median ~$50K)	Deepest consumer-intelligence analytics and historical archive; best-in-class sentiment	Enterprise-only positioning; onboarding $5K–$15K; likely overkill before national scale
YouTube Data API + custom	Free (quota-limited; 10K units/day default)	Comment threads, replies, moderation on owned channels	Engineering time (~2–4 weeks) to build polling, storage, and triage UI

Recommendation

Sprout Advanced, 3 seats, $14.4K/yr — the sentiment program in Listening requires the Advanced tier. Add Meltwater (~$25K/yr) only when earned-media and broadcast monitoring become requirements. Build the small YouTube API poller in-house — it is the cheapest reliable comment feed available.

Exclusive events

Vendor	Pricing	Capacity	Security features needed here
Zoom Webinars (500)	~$79/mo/license (~$950/yr) on top of Workplace Pro (~$13.32/user/mo)	500 attendees	Authenticated join, waiting room, disable local recording, visual + audio watermark
Zoom Events 100 / 500	$990/yr / ~$3,500/yr	100 / 500 per event, unlimited events	Adds lobby, registration, and reporting; same watermark stack
Webex Webinars	Bundled with Webex Suite (~$25/user/mo) or quote	1,000–10,000	Comparable authentication; watermarking less mature than Zoom
Teams Town Hall	Included in Teams Premium ($10/user/mo add-on)	10,000	Good if org already on Microsoft; external-guest friction for advocates

Recommendation

Zoom Events 500 at ~$3.5K/yr plus 3 Workplace Pro hosts (~$480/yr) covers all town-hall formats with the full watermark and authentication stack. Budget ~$4K/yr total.

Member portal and community

Vendor	Pricing	Fit	Watch out for
Circle Professional	$89/mo annual ($1,068/yr)	Clean spaces for calendar, resources, discussion; unlimited members	API/workflows require Business tier; 2% transaction fee irrelevant (no paid membership)
Circle Business	$199/mo annual ($2,388/yr)	Adds workflows, API access, white-label	The tier you actually want for CRM sync
Mighty Networks Launch	$79/mo ($948/yr)	Strong native mobile app; courses + events built in	Heavier than needed; 'hosts vs members' model adds admin overhead
Discourse (hosted)	$20–$100/mo	Best threaded discussion; open-source escape hatch	No native events/courses; feels like a forum, not a member hub

Recommendation

Circle Business at $2.4K/yr — the API and workflow tier is what lets membership status sync from the CRM gate access automatically.

Automation and integration

Vendor	Pricing	Right for	Cost reality
Make Teams	$29/mo (10K operations) + ~$9/10K overage	Webhook intake, CRM ↔ portal sync, dedupe jobs	~$65/mo at 50K ops; cheapest per-operation by 6–10×
Zapier Team	$69/mo annual (2K shared tasks)	Non-technical staff building their own flows	Per-task billing punishes multi-step flows; 50K tasks ≈ $200–300/mo
n8n (self-hosted)	Free + $5–$20/mo VPS	Token custody, platform webhooks, anything touching credentials	Requires one engineer; best security posture for OAuth tokens
Workato	Quote; $10K–$25K/yr entry	Enterprise governance, audit logging, hundreds of flows	10–50× the cost of Make for this workload; only at national scale

Recommendation

Make Teams for business logic (~$800/yr) plus self-hosted n8n (~$250/yr) for anything holding platform tokens. Combined under $1.1K/yr.

Analytics — warehouse and BI

Layer	Vendor	Pricing	Notes
Warehouse	BigQuery on-demand	$0–$200/mo at this scale (1TB/mo free queries; $6.25/TB after)	Serverless; no DBA needed; pair with a $500/mo Fivetran-lite ingestion budget only if native connectors fall short
Warehouse (alt)	Snowflake	$300–$800/mo minimum realistic	Only if a partner org is already Snowflake-native
BI	Metabase Cloud	$89/mo (10 users)	Fastest path to member-funnel and event-attendance dashboards
BI (alt)	Looker Studio Pro	$9/user/mo	Nearly free if on Google Workspace; weaker governance
BI (enterprise)	Looker	$5K/mo bundle entry	Not before national scale

Recommendation

BigQuery + Metabase, ~$3.5K/yr all-in. Defer the warehouse entirely during the first 60 days if Sprout + CRM reports answer the pilot scorecard questions.

Identity and access

Auth0 Essentials starts ~$35/mo for 500 monthly active users; Okta ~$2–$6/user/mo with 25-user minimums (~$1.5K–$3.6K/yr for staff); Microsoft Entra ID is bundled if the organization already pays for M365. Pilot can defer SSO and use each tool's native login — add Auth0 (~$420/yr) when the custom portal launches.

Total stack: three budget scenarios (annual)

Capability	Pilot (90 days)	Growth (state-level)	National program
Member CRM	Action Network — $4K	EveryAction — $12K	NGP VAN — $20K
Advocate CRM	GRIN Lite — $4.8K	GRIN Growth — $13.8K	CreatorIQ — $60K
Listening / engagement	Sprout Professional ×3 — $10.8K	Sprout Advanced ×5 — $24K	Brandwatch + Sprout — $75K
Events	Zoom Webinars — $1.4K	Zoom Events 500 — $4K	Zoom Events 3K — $15K
Member portal	Circle Professional — $1.1K	Circle Business — $2.4K	Custom portal — $40K
Automation	Make + n8n — $1K	Make + n8n — $1.5K	Workato — $15K
Analytics	Native reports — $0	BigQuery + Metabase — $3.5K	BigQuery + Metabase — $8K
Identity / SSO	Deferred — $0	Auth0 — $0.5K	Okta — $4K
Implementation (one-time)	$5K	$15K	$75K
Total year one	≈ $27K	≈ $76K	≈ $312K
Steady state (yr 2+)	≈ $22K	≈ $61K	≈ $237K

Excluded from these figures

Boosting/ad spend, staff salaries, and legal review. Boost budgets are set per race and per platform — model them live in the Cost Model. Quote-only vendors (Meltwater, Brandwatch, CreatorIQ, Workato) typically negotiate 10–20% down under competitive pressure or multi-year terms.

Canonical member record

Identity

Name, verified email, preferred contact, relationship owner

Declared fit

Geographies served, topics, languages, formats, availability

Permissions

Platform tokens, cross-post consent, boost consent, program acknowledgments

Activity

Invites, attendance, accepted support, URLs, incidents, feedback

Vendor examples are a shortlist, not an endorsement

Run a procurement check for API coverage, political-use terms, security, data export, deletion support, election-law needs, accessibility, and total cost before selection.

Cost model: what a local, state, or national program costs

Move the sliders to show donors the difference. Staffing scales with advocate count (1 relationship owner per 25 advocates); the platform layer is a fixed national investment that every level depends on; ad spend is what makes advocates visible beyond their existing audiences.

Inputs Live model

Active advocates60

10 = a single-town pilot · 150 = a statewide network · 1,500 = national scale

Annual ad / boosting spend$20K

Boosting member posts plus awareness ads. $60K/yr sustains a local program; $480K a state; $6M a national cycle.

—

Staff

—

Program — $150/advocate/mo

$51K

Shared platform (national-borne)

—

Total annual

Line items at current settings

Line	Basis	Annual cost
Relationship owners	—	—
Program lead	—	—
Member ops	—	—
Per-advocate program	—	—
Shared platform	EveryAction + GRIN + Sprout Advanced + Zoom Events + Circle + Make/n8n + BigQuery/Metabase + Auth0	$51K
Ad / boosting spend	Slider above — the visibility engine	—
Total		—

The platform is national's contribution

The $51K platform layer (CRM, advocate CRM, listening, events, portal, automation, analytics, SSO) is required even for a 25-advocate local pilot and should be borne by the national organization — local campaigns should never be asked to fund it. Details per vendor in Software.

Not included

Candidate travel and event production, legal retainers, and content production staff. Ad spend figures assume boosting member content and program-awareness ads, not candidate persuasion media — that budget lives with the campaign.

How this compares to the Republican outreach machine

The right built its advantage over 15 years through four interlocking machines: a campus field army (Turning Point USA), a nonprofit content studio (PragerU), a for-profit media empire (Daily Wire and successors), and a donor venture network (Rockbridge). Figures below are from public reporting — IRS 990 filings, Meta Ad Library, NYT/Washington Post coverage, and Social Blade — checked August 2026.

The four machines, documented

Machine	Scale (documented)	Model	2026 status
Turning Point USA / Club America	~3,400 school chapters; 350K new student signups post-2025; state partnerships in 8+ GOP states	Campus field army: chapters as activism hubs with official toolkits, field reps, and governor-level backing	Surging since Kirk's death, but coalition-managing role is contested
PragerU	$245M raised over 5 years; ~$28M spent on Meta ads 2018–24; 1B+ video views	Nonprofit 'influencer-intellectual' studio: credentialed presenters + mass paid distribution	Still the content engine; expanding into state curricula
Daily Wire / podcast row	$100M/yr revenue at 2022 peak; Shapiro YouTube down ~70% since Dec 2024 (27M→4M weekly views)	For-profit subscription media + personality podcasts	Splintering: Owens, Carlson, and independents now outrank legacy shows; layoffs at Daily Wire
Rockbridge Network	$75M budget in 2024; $100K–$1M donor membership	Political venture capital: funds media, data, and turnout operations as a portfolio	Active; financing the 'parallel economy' (Rumble, Carlson's company, Substack)

Five more machines worth tracking

The four flagship machines above dominate the narrative, but these organizations do the quieter work — doors, data, training, and school boards — that wins down-ballot races.

Machine	Documented scale	What it does	Lesson for us
Americans for Prosperity (Koch network)	36 state chapters, 100+ offices, 616 staff, claims 4M activists; ~$550M spent in 2024 cycle; 525K doors knocked in 2025	Permanent year-round field operation: paid canvassers, issue advocacy, endorsements	AFP proves year-round presence beats surge staffing — our network stays active on issues between cycles for the same reason
i360 (Koch data firm)	Wholly owned Koch subsidiary; voter and consumer data on hundreds of millions of Americans	Data and targeting backbone: canvass apps show issue-based scripts per household	The machine runs on data integration — our Listening + CRM stack is the modest, consent-based equivalent
Leadership Institute	Founded 1979; claims 250K+ activists trained; top sponsor of Moms for Liberty summits; Campus Reform pipeline	Training factory: campaign schools, field reps, media training, campus journalism	Training is the cheapest durable investment — our onboarding and advocate academies mirror it at 1% of the budget
Moms for Liberty	300+ chapters in 48 states, ~130K members, $2M+ revenue	Local elected power: school board takeovers, chapter-led candidate recruitment	Proof that hyperlocal chapters convert online anger into seats — the model our local tier adapts for centrist Dems
Faith & Freedom Coalition	Claims ~2M members; voter guides distributed through churches; tens of millions in cycle spending	Values-based voter mobilization through trusted community institutions	They borrow the trust of existing institutions; our version is recruiting through community voices members already follow

Capability-by-capability comparison

Sorted for the room: green = our wins, amber = trade-offs, red = their wins.

Capability	Their machine	This program	Verdict
Content engine	PragerU-style studios with $28M+ in paid distribution behind produced video	Members make their own content; we amplify with boosting via the tools in the Software stack	We win on authenticity and cost. Their content is polished but institution-branded; ours is native to each advocate's audience.
Cost per reach	PragerU pays ~$0.03/view buying ads at scale; Daily Wire needed $100M/yr to hold attention	Pilot software stack ≈ $27K/yr (Software); boost budgets set per race	We win on efficiency. Their model requires 9 figures of donor money to sustain; ours is 3 orders of magnitude cheaper per authentic impression.
Coalition breadth	Post-Kirk splintering: Owens vs. Shapiro vs. Carlson feuds; establishment shows hemorrhaging viewers	Centrist positioning targets the 80% majority with no factional baggage	We win on timing. Their machine is fighting itself; the pragmatic lane is open.
Discipline and message control	Toolkits, talking points, and chapter handbooks keep 3,400 nodes on-message	Members write in their own words within an alignment condition	Trade-off. Their control delivers consistency; our looseness delivers credibility with centrists who distrust scripted content.
Institutional backing	Governors, state parties, and 501(c)(3) donor networks writing $250M/yr in checks	Contracted program with per-race budgets	They win on resources. Our counter is speed: a pilot launches in 90 days, not 15 years.
Physical presence	3,400+ school chapters with state backing — a chapter is a permanent recruiting post	No chapters; local presence is event-based and member-led	They win decisively. Chapters are a 15-year head start we cannot buy.
Talent pipeline	Chapters produce field reps, spokespeople, and candidates; the ladder starts at age 14	Network recruits adults only, via DM playbooks and referrals	They win. Our entry point is 10+ years later in a person's political life.
Data and voter file	RNC + state-party voter files, i360/Rockbridge-funded data ops, years of modeled scores	Self-reported member data only — no purchased voter scores; CRM per the Software stack	They win on raw voter data. We deliberately trade that for consent-based data that survives privacy scrutiny.

Where we are better

Authenticity at scale

Their top-down content is institution-branded and increasingly factional. Member-generated content in our model carries each advocate's existing trust — and the amplification tooling (see Software) costs roughly $27K/yr at pilot scale versus PragerU's tens of millions in annual ad spend.

Timing the split

NYT and Washington Post document the post-2025 splintering: Daily Wire traffic halved, Shapiro down ~70% on YouTube, Owens/Carlson ascendant. The machine is spending energy on internal feuds while the centrist lane — our stated 80% premise — goes uncontested.

Speed to field

TPUSA's chapter network took 14 years. This program fields a measurable pilot in 90 days because it rents infrastructure (GRIN, Sprout, Zoom, Circle — itemized in Software) instead of building institutions.

Where we are lacking — and the honest counter

Gap	Why it matters	Our counter (not a fix)
No youth pipeline	Their members arrive at 14 and stay for life; ours arrive as adults with fixed habits	Recruit community voices with existing local trust rather than trying to form identities; accept the older entry point
No chapter permanence	A chapter outlives any campaign; ours must be designed to persist	Run issue programming between cycles — there is always a live policy fight; the network peaks in election season but never dissolves
1/100th the budget	$250M/yr in nonprofit media funding on their side; per-race budgets on ours	Precision over volume: jurisdiction-matched activation instead of national blanket spending
No voter-file modeling	They score 200M+ voters; we know only what members tell us	Consent-based profiles are smaller but durable under privacy law and platform policy shifts
Personality risk	Their machine survived losing its biggest star; ours depends on candidate availability	Build the member peer network as the durable asset, so no single candidate departure collapses it

Bottom line for the presentation

We will not out-build Turning Point's chapters or out-spend PragerU's ad budgets — and the plan does not try. The opening is that their machine is expensive, factional, and optimized for a base that is fighting itself, while this program is cheap, fast, and aimed at the pragmatic majority they ignore.

90-day launch plan

Tooling referenced below — CRM, listening, events, portal — is priced per tier in Software; pilot year-one stack ≈ $27K.

Design Days 1–30

Name executive sponsor and program owner.
Choose one state and two contrasting local pilots.
Define published membership and access criteria.
Approve consent, disclosure, boosting, and event rules.
Configure CRM schema and relationship-owner workflow.
Recruit 20–30 founding members through warm outreach.

Pilot Days 31–60

Run orientation and first expert briefing.
Connect authorized social accounts and mention feeds.
Hold one local and one statewide event.
Cross-post with approval; test a small disclosed boost.
Review response time, access failures, and member feedback.
Conduct tabletop exercise for a leaked recording.

Scale decision Days 61–90

Compare pilot regions and member lanes.
Document repeatable playbooks and service levels.
Fix data duplication, token, and consent gaps.
Train state and local relationship owners.
Set quarterly budget and capacity limits.
Approve expansion only if trust and safety gates pass.

Pilot scorecard

Objective	Indicator	Initial decision threshold
Recruit a credible network	Qualified people who complete onboarding	At least 20, with local and community-voice representation
Deliver real member value	Members rating access/resources useful	At least 75% in post-event pulse
Build durable participation	Onboarded members active in 30 days	At least 50%
Respond reliably	Median time to answer member questions	Under two business days
Amplify transparently	Supported posts with member authorization on file	100%
Protect trust	High-severity privacy, access, or undisclosed-support incidents	Zero
Avoid surveillance incentives	Profiles containing inferred sensitive political traits	Zero

Go / no-go gate

Expand when members report value, workflows are reliable, and local teams can sustain relationship quality. High reach alone is not a reason to scale.

Governance, law, and trust

Non-negotiable controls

Written member agreement stating the alignment condition, the member's own-voice rule, and disclosure duties.
Clear disclosure standard for access, material support, cross-posting, and paid boosting.
Campaign-finance and coordinated-communications review before launch and by jurisdiction.
No purchase or enrichment of sensitive political profiles for recruitment.
Consent ledger with purpose, timestamp, source, revocation, and deletion workflow.
Role-based access; quarterly access review; immediate offboarding.
Incident plan for harassment, doxxing, account compromise, leaked events, and false attribution.
Comparable-access policy where neutrality or primary-election rules require it.

Decision rights

Decision	Accountable
Membership criteria	Program + legal/compliance
Individual invitation	Relationship owner
Candidate event approval	Campaign/program + compliance
Boost authorization	Member + digital lead
Public response	Communications lead
Safety escalation	Trust & safety lead
Data deletion	Privacy owner

Red lines

Do not

Hide funded boosts, present program activity as independent grassroots opinion, share member lists across campaigns without consent, or infer sensitive political traits for individualized persuasion.

Publish the program's purpose and its alignment condition, label every boosted or cross-posted item, distinguish organic and paid reach, document decisions, and give people meaningful control over their data.

Verified capability notes

Meta's current Instagram documentation supports professional-account insights, owned-media comments, tags, and specified mention webhooks, with important private content and story limitations.

YouTube's Data API supports comment threads, replies, and authorized moderation. TikTok's general Display API centers on authorized profile/video display; broader comment datasets are restricted to approved products such as research access.

Zoom documents authenticated attendance, visual watermarking, and audio watermarking. These deter and help attribute leaks; they do not block external recording.

Sources checked August 2026: Meta Instagram Platform documentation; TikTok for Developers Display and Research API documentation; YouTube Data API comments documentation; Zoom security and watermarking documentation. Platform capabilities and political-use terms change—revalidate during procurement.

Hypothetical pattern · fictional candidates and people

01What she sees now1 of 4

Meet Sally. She's flooded with attack and defense ads.

Hollister attacks. Whitaker defends. Neither sounds like anyone she knows.

Candidate Greg Hollister (R)

ATTACK · same ad, several times a week

Sponsored ad from Greg Hollister for Michigan: Too extreme. Too socialist. — Video: "Too extreme"

Sponsored ad from Greg Hollister for Michigan: Don't let Michigan become the next socialist experiment. — Feed: "Socialist experiment"

Candidate Dana Whitaker (D)

DEFENSE · a rebuttal for every attack

Sponsored ad from Dana Whitaker for Michigan: Greg Hollister calls Dana Whitaker a socialist. It isn't true. — Response: "It isn't true"

Sponsored ad from Dana Whitaker for Michigan: Fact check, Hollister's ad claim rated false. — Fact-check: "FALSE"

Sponsored ad from Dana Whitaker for Michigan: Scare tactics. Again. — Video: "Scare tactics"

All noise, no neighbors. Every ad is about stoking fear or mistrust.

02What she sees from The 80's network2 of 4

Our approach: a local mom she already follows

Jess isn't a campaign. She's a Traverse City mom with the same problem Sally has.

Reel from @UpNorthOnABudget: Pickup line car rant. Jed's first paycheck vs. his gas tank.

Talking points from The80, in her own words

Notes: Talking points Jess received. Michigan's minimum wage is $13.73 now, $15 in 2027. State law bars towns like Traverse City from setting their own minimum wage, and Hollister wants to keep it that way. Work should pay. Keep it about your family, not about parties.

Why it works

1
Someone Sally already follows@UpNorthOnABudget is a local mom's account, not a campaign.
2
She looks like Sally, with the same problemHer own teen's paycheck barely covers gas.
3
Her followers are other local parentsPickup-line moms, neighbors, people from church.
4
It sounds like her normal contentThe 80 gives her talking points but doesn't pay her, so it's in her own words.

Not a campaign. An account Sally already trusts, with the same problem she has.

03How it spreads3 of 4

The bridge: from one post to real conversations

Local followers answer Jess and each other, then carry it into the places Sally already goes.

1Neighbors reply to Jess, and to each other

Comments on @UpNorthOnABudget's Reel: neighbors including linda.on.eighth, meg.pickupline, kara.westside.mom and sam.on.front.st talk about teen paychecks, gas, rent and Traverse City's minimum wage.

2A local shop posts too

Post from Bayside Coffee (@BaysideCoffeeTC), Front Street, Traverse City: Rent and gas cost more up here than downstate.

@BaysideCoffeeTCA Front Street owner on his high-school staff and the cost of living up north.

Comments on the Bayside post: meg.pickupline tells kara.westside.mom it's the same thing Jess posted about; kara replies, let's talk at pickup tomorrow; linda.on.eighth says see you after church for coffee.

3It carries into real life

Church coffee hour

Linda: Did you see Jess's post? My grandson's paycheck barely covers his gas.

Sally: Mine too. Hollister calls it a 'patchwork.' I call it us deciding for ourselves.

Linda: I don't see why Lansing should decide what a kid in Traverse City earns.

School pickup line

Kara: Did you see Bayside's post? Same thing Jess said. I don't know what to think.

Sally: I'm going to talk to Pastor Mike about this on Sunday.

One post becomes a neighborhood conversation. Ads repeat and rebut. Neighbors answer each other.

04Why it works4 of 4

Why real people beat more ads

	Hollister ads	Whitaker ads	Our pitch
Who's talking	A paid campaign	A paid campaign	People Sally knows and follows
What it's about	Whether Whitaker is a socialist	Whether Hollister is lying	Her kid's paycheck and gas money
Tone	Fear	Defensive	Neighborly, no lecture
What it asks of Sally	Pick a team out of fear	Pick a team out of distrust	Ask a question and let Traverse City decide

About two-thirds of Americans sit outside the ideological wings and are tired of the fighting

(More in Common)

Pew's Pragmatic and Polite Right group places a high value on civility

(Pew, 2026)

61% of Americans view their local government favorably, vs. 50% for their state, with little gap by party

(Pew, 2024)

The ads argued about a label. Jess and Linda talked about her kid's paycheck.

Sources: More in Common (moreincommonus.com) · Pew Research Center: 2026 Political Typology; ratings of state and local government, Apr. 2024 (pewresearch.org) · Michigan 2015 PA 105, MCL 123.1385. Hypothetical pattern; fictional candidates.

Back to the Prospectus

← Return to the Executive Summary