From my point of view, one of the ‘huge points being missed’ here is that while advertising may indeed move only a tiny fraction of people, we keep finding ourselves in the very position of needing that tiny fraction of people.

Re: our press, it seems a legitimate area of concern whether an ad model that at the very least contributed to losing in California should be continued. And it struck me as a little disingenuous to imply that any alternative ad models would be by definition ‘arguments that are lecturing, polarizing or angry’. Among other segments of our society engaged in this discourse, there are many school districts across this country using lgbt materials in diversity education, some have been for decades. They have somehow managed to find acceptance for their programs, make the distinction between teaching tolerance (including lgbt families) to small children and sex education designed to prepare teenagers for safe sex. We might have something to learn from them because we seem so unable to make that basic distinction on any level when the right comes after us on it.

At this point its too late to change the ads or even have that debate. What we can do is stop denigrating each other: questioning a strategy doesn’t do that, calling each other armchair quarterbacks does.

I found it uncomfortable when after 911 Bush framed it that one didn’t care about their country if they didn’t support the war. I feel the same when having concerns about strategy is construed as nonsupport for those doing the work. We all want Jesse to succeed and appreciate the work being done there.

I think that our press and bloggers have done an excellent job this last year following some exciting and painful chapters in our history. In terms of their raising questions and concerns, in the end it is the role, the prerogative and responsibility of a free press.

Re: Emily and Philip's point, I heard Helen Thomas (white house journalist through 10 presidents) say last week that the American people can take the truth, they just can't take lies. When you've seen that much history, you know.

Great article Matt. It was nice to have met you again in person at the No on 1 Campaign Headquarter today in Portland, Maine. I'm glad you took the armchair critics to task for their criticism of the No on 1 Campaign insofar as their handling of the ads are concerned. I wish there are more leaders like you who's willing to come canvass with the rest of us grassroots activists and I wish the armchair critics would turn off their computers and step outside to join us with this effort as well. It would do much for their theorizing about what's really going on in Maine. From having been here on the ground, I am confident that Jesse Connolly is running a disciplined campaign and he's sticking to principles and this is to our advantage because Mainers don't like outsiders telling them what to do. As far as Phillip's assertion that the Yes side has been framing the debate is concerned, that is not the case. If anything, our side framed the debate about this being a Maine issue and Mainers care about equality for their friends and family. What I'm experiencing here on the ground is that those Maine values are true. Mainers really do care about their LGBT fellows. Two of the hosts that I know of, one being my hosts, have been straight allies. Let me remind everyone that in our rush to judgment about the weakness of the No on 1 Campaign, in this election cycle, there isn't a persuasion work being done on either side as far as the ground campaign is concerned, the work is being focused on GOTV. That's where the real work is. I challenge all the armchair critics, including but not limited to: Phillip Minton, Andrew Sullivan, Mike Tidmus et al. to get up off their armchair and take a volunteer vacation and join us in Maine for this last stretch of the campaign. We could really use your help. Besides, it will give you something to really write about.

Finally, all of the focus on television ads, both in Maine and California, misses a huge point, namely, that advertising rarely moves more than a tiny fraction of people to change their minds on any candidate, subject or product that people feel they know well. And if there's one issue that everyone thinks they know about, it's marriage.

If that's true, then why was so much of money raised by the No Campaign in California spent on TV ads? A door-to-door campaign is of course harder to organize in a bigger state, but also more help is available in a state with a much larger LGBTQA population. And the Yes Campaign didn't do a bad job of it out there.

Personally, I think the Maine ads are pretty good, although they aren't aimed at me (or anyone reading this thread). And they're significantly different from the ads in California, in that they show same-sex couples and LGBT families, respond more quickly to the right's claims, actually mention the word "marriage," and have been much more aggressive.

Maybe you could clarify: California ran some ads, and you said they were good and the best for the campaign. Maine runs very different ads, and you say they're good and the best for the campaign. What's up with that?

I've always wondered why there are no ads made that show the denial of civil rights to LTGB people in action. Showing a long term partner being denied hospital visitation, or a person being fired because they put a picture of their partner on their desk at work would make real the pain and harm the members of the LGTB community experience every day.

I think the American people are very invested in equal treatment and fair play. Showing how these concepts are denied TLGB people would solidify the rhetoric we usually use in the minds of the electorate. I suppose that there is some reason that I haven't thought of yet which would explain the absence of such ads. Is there one?

Matt has already described an effective new approach to marriage equality advertising.

I say run with his suggestion, to wit:

The kid/bullying-at-schools attack ads will be effective because they go right to the parental-protection gut of parents. They will carry a double-whammy: first, that young people are bullied (read "beaten, bruised and bloodied") at school because they or their family members are gay or lesbian; and second, that kids will come home asking their parents for answers about how to defend themselves. Whether we like it or not, one reason parents expect the school to keep a lid on bullying is so that they're not put on the spot and shamed by their own children over their inability to keep them safe.

I'll try to enunciate more clearly this time.

I disagree with the argument that certain ad strategies are somehow a priori only available to the side opposed to marriage equality.

That's the extent of my disagreement. As far as the No on 1 campaign is concerned, we agree that Jesse's rock-steady approach has been an amazing thing to watch.