Countdown

Home > Interviews > Sig Rogich

Sig Rogich

Sig Rogich is the chairman of Rogich Communications Group, a Las Vegas-based consulting firm. He was an adviser to presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and was U.S. ambassador to Iceland in the George H.W. Bush administration. He raised more than $100,000 for George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign and raised more than $200,000 for his 2004 reelection effort. He recently committed to raising money for John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign.

John W. Mashek interviewed Rogich on April 10, 2007.

Other than the huge amounts of money, what do you think is the big difference between the campaigns so far this year and the campaigns you worked on in the past?

Well, I think probably the media has given so much more availability to them, in such an early format, that you are going to see the landscape change. You have so many candidates out there, and you are watching things occur at not a 24-hour pace, but a 24-second pace. And, of course, that is going to change the dynamic. I think you are going to see some innovation here in the cycle in 2007-2008.

I have been reading a little bit about what Barry Goldwater suggested back in 1964 to President [John F.] Kennedy before he was assassinated, that they travel together and debate at each stop together. And I thought that was very innovative then. I remember as a young boy, thinking about it and wondering why they never continued to do that. [Lyndon] Johnson, of course, didn’t want to do it. But I think it would be very innovative to think back in those terms again. And I am going to suggest it, myself, to my candidate.

Most of the press was blown away by these first-quarter totals in fundraising. Did we overreact to those numbers, particularly on the parts of [Mitt] Romney and [Barack] Obama?

Well, I am impressed with them in terms of the dollar amounts. But I don’t think anyone should overreact in terms of the amounts that are needed. The reason they are needed is because everything has gone up since the last presidential election accordingly. It costs money to run for president. I would bet you that probably the cost of the electronic media alone, since the last cycle, is probably up somewhere in the area of 35 [percent] to 50 percent. So it’s just a matter of mathematics; it costs more money to reach people.

Your answer leads me to ask you: Some believe it’s going to take a lot of money, certainly more than $50 million, perhaps a lot more, to be a player. But can a candidate of the so-called second tier or third tier use retail politics and get on local television and radio talk shows, as [John] Edwards appears to be doing even though he is collecting a goodly sum of money? Can a candidate get in that playing field, in that way?

I think so. I think that it has to be done well, creatively, and judiciously. But the big clamor among all media is content. And if you can craft the good content in the settings, I think there is always a market for it. I don’t know if you can cut through to the same magnitude, at the same level, that those who are buying media are going to have. But you can certainly cut a slab of some significance if you are creative, and you are out doing some of the things like Edwards is doing today.

One of my colleagues in the media today wrote a column that said, “Well, so much for the automatic coronation of Hillary Clinton and John McCain,” that it’s a much more wide-open race, despite Hillary’s huge amounts of money and McCain’s participation in the election in 2000. Do you see it as a wide-open affair right now?

Well, I think a couple of things have occurred. One, I would hate to be on the Democratic primary side up against her, because she is so formidable. And the essence of it all is that many of the party organizations are already committed. And, of course, there are not that many that really decide who is going to be the nominee, when it’s all said and done. I think McCain has had some difficulty because he’s attached so closely to what’s happening in Iraq. And that’s probably the dynamic. But I have always described presidential elections as roller-coaster rides. You have your ups and you have your downs. And I have watched it happen to the best of them.

Ronald Reagan had a very down moment in Iowa with George [H.W.] Bush, and came back to win in New Hampshire. And Bush had a difficult time in Iowa against Bob Dole, and came back to win in New Hampshire. And so you have to realize that this thing is seasonal and cyclical. And what’s here today is probably not going to be there tomorrow. Things are going to change. But having said all of that, I think at the end of the day it will be difficult to beat Hillary. I think at the end of the day it’s still John McCain’s to lose. But I think the unknown here, actually in my opinion, is Al Gore. I think that he, potentially, has the opportunity to re-emerge.

Get in later because of the name, and the background, et cetera?

Well, these things will probably help him a lot. I think the Academy Award, which is so political, helped him. I wouldn’t be surprised if this summer he gets a Nobel Prize. It’s very political. That’s going to help a guy like him. But he’s kind of lurking out there. And he’s got name ID. And he’s got a lot of momentum. And he would leapfrog if the Democratic Party apparatus is not content with, or happy with, or believes it can [win] with Hillary.

Next February 5, when 20 states, maybe more, hold their primaries, the super-duper Tuesday, we will know then almost assuredly who the candidates are. There is going to be a tremendously long hiatus from that time until the Republicans meet in Minneapolis right [around] Labor Day. And then you have the fall campaign. What are candidates going to do with their money from February until late summer to keep this thing alive?

Well, they are going to save it and earn interest on it.

They are going to make sure they are not too top-heavy in organizational costs. I know that for sure, because this will be an onslaught of media in the months of September and October. I think they are going to build their organizations. They are going to have to understand that those months in the summer are long and hot, and people tune out. And those are the months where a lot of quiet work is done. If you look at the states that were significant for Republican success, and I think Democrats are now realizing this, the success really occurred in rural America. And that means taking the time and the trouble to go out and visit in the farmlands and the outer areas.

It’s kind of like Richard Nixon’s 1960 election with John F. Kennedy. Nixon promised to be in all 50 states, and he kept his word. But in October he was in Alaska, and Idaho, and Montana, and Kennedy was in Chicago, and Ohio, and New York, where the population base was. And so I view rural America as Alaska, Montana, and Idaho. Get there, and get there early. Cement those votes, because they voted in greater proportion. And those are the months to do it, to get out there and campaign heavily. Tie up those voters. And those will be the deciding factors in those tight races in some of those states that are too close to call.

In the 2004 election, I remember doing a study, to buttress what you just said. And I believe, even with Houston and Dallas, at least inside the city, Kerry carried all of the major metropolitan areas and lost [Texas], mainly because of the big lopsided margin that [Bush] rolled up against Kerry in the rural areas. So it is sort of a forgotten stream of voters. And not just the farmers, but there are people in small cities [whose] votes count, just like they do in urban America.

Well, they pay attention. They vote, too, in higher numbers. They are more issue-driven. They probably are a little more patriotic, in the sense that they are small-business men and women. They are farmers and ranchers. In Nevada, for example, and New Mexico, and Arizona — those states come to mind — what happens in the bigger cities is not necessarily a reflection of how those states end up voting as a whole. New Mexico came in late and voted Republican in the last election, despite the fact that the numbers were big in Albuquerque. In Nevada, despite the fact that numbers were big in Las Vegas, the Democratic ticket, the outlying areas of Elko, and Ely, and White Pine County, places like that, carried Republicans to victory. And the same is true in parts of Arizona. That is kind of a trend I see happening. And I see people paying more attention to it.

And the election for president, when [George W.] Bush ran the last time, I was on the phone with Karl Rove. And they had seen the early results for Las Vegas and Reno. And they were concerned. I think the president was with him from the White House. And I said to Karl: “Don’t worry. You can’t lose this race, in my opinion. You are going to carry rural Nevada by ‘x’ percent of the vote. And I think by 40,000 votes or so. And you are going to carry the state by 3 percent or 4 percent.” And that’s precisely where it came in. We carried rural Nevada by 40,250 votes.

So that offset the Vegas?

It offset it. And it’s that way in some of these states that are tight.

Do you see a lot of interest in the caucuses in Nevada, since they have now got themselves a perch before the biggies next February?

Some. But I see Iowa hasn’t announced their date yet. I would just guarantee it’s going to be ahead of Nevada. I can’t imagine they are going to, all of a sudden. I see the secretary of state in Iowa hasn’t formally announced what they are going to have. But I can guarantee you they are not going to . . .

Well, New Hampshire has a law that if any state schedules a primary earlier than theirs, they automatically move it a day ahead. And that’s Democrats or Republicans. In New Hampshire, they are protecting their turf.

Well, the evolution of all of this early-primary stuff will be, hopefully, that you end up with reasonable primaries that are meaningful. The nonsense that all of these years, two states, Iowa and New Hampshire, set the tone and tenor for America’s election of its president is probably somewhat outdated right now.

Well circling back, if we could, to money and spending. You mentioned the terrific cost and the escalating cost with inflation and every other production. Given that, and given that February looms as so important, even before Iowa and New Hampshire and Nevada and South Carolina vote, is a media buy in those states going to be so expensive that only two or three candidates can really get into the game?

Well, that’s a good question. You are not going to get the earned rate that you traditionally get, the lowest unit rate that’s available, if you are buying it off the rate card in those early primaries, I wouldn’t think. Now maybe there are some rules that will allow that to occur. As you know, by law, in those federal races during the election cycle they have to provide low unit rates. That is, the lowest earned rate that any retail advertiser could get. If they can’t get that, because they are buying ads early, and they are outside that window, then it will be very expensive. And that will change the dynamic of this.

I know this is just an estimate, but if a candidate were to buy in a major market like L.A., I guess the rate differs with how many you take. But remember Ross Perot’s infomercials? What if a candidate, fairly close to February 5, wanted 30 minutes in the L.A. market? Just give me an idea of what that is likely to cost, [on] the network affiliates in L.A.

The network affiliate, in primetime you mean?

Yeah.

Oh my gosh, probably cost you several hundred thousand dollars. In order to do well in California, from the television standpoint, you have to run, let’s say, probably anything from a low of 1,100 to a high of 1,500 gross rating points, weekly. And the cost to do that, probably, would put you in the ballpark of, by today’s numbers, just to be a player in California, probably something like $13 million. And I am guessing it’s probably closer to $15 million – $18 million. So that means in order to be competitive in California today, you have to pencil in those kinds of numbers.

Well, we both know that money doesn’t necessarily buy success, as John Connally and Phil Gramm certainly found out. But am I wrong in thinking that maybe this time, with the huge amounts that are being raised, that it may be more important in this next cycle than it ever has been? I know that’s a large statement. But it just seems to me, with the frantic way the money is being raised now, that the managers and the candidates themselves see this as a crucible.

Well, I don’t know. That’s another good question. I don’t know if it’s any more important than it has been previously. It probably has to be looked at in terms of better efficiencies, more creative spending, and how to reach the masses. There is a burnout element here, eventually, with media.

And what I have noticed happening in the last cycle, two cycles really, is that all of this stuff starts to look the same. I thought that 1984 version of Hillary, that ad that ran on the blog that you may have seen, set the tone and tenor for the kinds of commercials that will cut through and have impact. I think those are the kinds of things that you might expect to see in this next election cycle, with people who are creative to make those.

But when everything starts to look like a congressional district ad, something is lost in the mix. And I think maybe you will see a little more money go into good production quality. Maybe the guys running these campaigns will say, “Listen, instead of spending $10 to produce a spot and running it 100 times, let’s spend $50 to produce a spot and run it 75 times, because our spot is going to stand out more.”

Well, you are a veteran in this area, so I am compelled to ask: We see all of these polls that American voters say they are sick and tired of negative ads. And, of course, the candidates, the media, and everybody has their own description of what a so-called negative ad is, defining the other candidate, not identifying with anything, like a smear. Again, going back to this long interval from February 5 on, when Americans still aren’t really paying attention other than in the states, perhaps, where the interest is a little higher, are we apt to see an avalanche of ads that define candidate ‘Y’ and candidate ‘X’?

Not quite yet, I don’t think. But if you ask someone, do they like negative ads, they are going to say no. 

It casts them in a certain area.

Yeah, it’s a predisposed question. You are going to get, the answer is no. But the bottom line is, if you really look at it, there are negative ads every day in our lives. Pepsi takes a shot at Coca-Cola. Chevy takes a shot at Buick. And Audi takes a shot at Mercedes. And it goes on and on and on. We are in a competitive mode here, from a marketing standpoint. Why should it be any different with people than it is with products? It’s just that we haven’t paid attention to the product negativity.

The ultimate cost of this next cycle has been projected as probably America’s first billion-dollar election. And a lot of people are swept away by that. And yet there is a counterargument that how much does a democracy cost and what about the money that is spent on advertising, particularly by the giants? Is that a shocking figure, or should it be, to the American people?

No, I don’t think so. I mean, it is expensive. It’s a big business. It’s a big business to try to reach every American voter, just like it’s a big business to try to reach every American consumer. It costs money to do that. And there is no shortcut to getting there. And there is a formula for it. It costs ‘x’ amount of dollars to put a mailer together, to print it, and mail it, send it, put postage on it. It costs ‘x’ amount of dollars to put an ad on TV, or radio, or a newspaper, or a billboard. And it’s the system we live in; it’s no different here than it is in other parts of the world, by the way.

You and I are old enough to remember the old [Richard] Viguerie direct-mail way, not necessarily for candidates, but for conservative causes. And yet today, I would daresay that a very, very tiny margin is raised by direct mail. And most of it is Internet and direct appeals by the candidates or their backers. Would you agree with that?

It’s true. I’ll tell you, if you can put a direct-mail piece out and get your message out with it, and pay for the direct mail, you have done a good job.

The day after John and Elizabeth Edwards appeared on 60 Minutes to talk about the recurrence of her cancer, they raised more than $800,000 just overnight. So one event can spark [donations]. So I can ask you, are Iowa and New Hampshire even more important now? Of course, Edwards would think that [it’s important], because he is practically living in Iowa, to come catapulting out of those states and to give you a lot of momentum going into February 5.

Well, I think they are important. There is no question about it. I don’t know how to measure how important they are, because the road map is changing so much. And so this is kind of new turf. But I think you are going to see people’s minds being made up in a different fashion than you have previously.

Really? Explain that a little. That sounds interesting.

Well, they are not going to pay as much attention right now to things; I think there is a burnout factor here in this thing called presidential politics. And so what may happen early on in Iowa and New Hampshire, because of this overwhelming media onslaught, may have a complete turnaround in the primary process where it might not have had as much impact previously.

Right. Of course, we could have a different winner, too, in Iowa and New Hampshire, to totally scramble things.

You could. That’s happened in the past, by the way. It happened with Reagan and [George H.W.] Bush. It happened with [George W.] Bush and McCain. It happened with [Bob] Dole and [George H.W.] Bush on the Republican side. And it happened on the Democratic side.

It has. Jimmy Carter won, but he didn’t win.

Eugene McCarthy.

In Jimmy’s case, actually, the winner was “none of the above.” But Jimmy got the most votes.

He got the most. Well, a guy named [Eugene] McCarthy caused Lyndon Johnson not to run.

I guess what I am saying is that this cycle, I think, is one of the more important presidential elections ever, just because of what’s going on in the world. But I think you are going to see some things that we didn’t expect and would have not known, because of the ways these things are moving up so quickly. And because of the early, early start that people are getting as a result of that.

What is the outlook, based maybe on previous years? Or maybe you can make a prediction: how many voters, both Democratic and Republican, turn out in Nevada for caucuses.

Well, we haven’t had caucuses, per se.

This is the first one coming up?

Yeah. I guess it’s going to be low. My guess is that if you get to 50 percent, you will be doing something significant. So my guess is it will be in the mid-30s.

Have they already set up machinery where there would be a lot of polling? I mean like in Iowa, will they be in fire stations, schoolhouses?

No. They will do that, I am sure, but not yet. But I think you will probably find turnouts in the mid-30s to the low-40s kind of thing. Right now, that’s the way it’s going to be. Because it may not be as significant as it should be if everybody else moves it up again.

Now one final area, because you have played a role in advising, et cetera, in presidential debates. We have interviewed Frank Fahrenkopf and are going to interview Paul Kirk and Janet Brown. And, of course, they are operating on the assumption that the candidates will agree to three presidential [debates] and one vice presidential [debate]. But depending on the debates, first, do you see the debates playing a major role this next time around?

Well, they always do. I would like my guy to debate, like I talked to you about earlier. I would like him to travel in the same plane or train with the guy or lady running against him and debate at little whistle-stops. I think what goes into these debates is the paralyzing component in the whole process. It stops the campaign in place. If you are the incumbent, it paralyzes the White House. Nobody is happy with the outcome. Nobody likes each other. They hate the people putting the debate on. And they don’t really define or get to where you want to get. I have not seen memorable debates, per se, in my mind, that have had dramatic effects on . . .

Nixon-Kennedy was probably the major one, but that was for different reasons.

That’s the one that always comes to mind, for me, as one that had impact. And that’s because expectations were extraordinarily high for Nixon and then not so high for Kennedy. And Kennedy knocked that out of the ballpark. Nixon looked tired. And all of those factors that you know about.

Well, I must say, in some of the debates, and I was a panelist at three of them, you read the transcript, and then you watch it on television. Of course, my view is pretty much well-known that on substance Nixon probably won that debate in 1960. But Kennedy looked young and fresh, and of course, [there was] the Nixon makeup problem. And it shows you the high stakes you mentioned that candidates go into. And, of course, we all know that Bush the elder just hated debates, and it showed. You could see not just the look at the watch; he just didn’t understand why we were doing this.

Well, I think if you took two weeks, let’s say, during the election, and you had the two people travel together across the country, and stop and answer questions from the crowd, I think it would be a hell of a process.