Building the Narrative to Take Down a Tax – The Adelanto Case Study: Strategy Phase

Research to Strategy: How Campaigns are Won

In our last post in this series, we explored how deep research gave us a great deal to test in building the foundation for the No on Measure U campaign in Adelanto, and how that policy research formed the “guts” of our baseline survey.

Next, we move into the Strategy phase of the HexaCom Advantage—where we took all that data and crafted the right narrative to take down this proposal. Our goal in this phase was to make clear decisions about how we wanted to frame this whole effort.

We knew the City would argue they “needed the money” to provide essential services. We knew they would blame property owners for the City’s budget and economic struggles. The survey we conducted in early January 2024, just 8 weeks from election day, aimed to test our theory that support for this proposal was wide but not deep, and that a well-crafted campaign could severely undercut initial support.

Initial Polling: A Daunting Challenge Ahead

The survey, conducted for us by Pulse Decision Science (fka WPA Intelligence), confirmed our hunch.

Measure U started with a strong lead of 72% Yes to 14% No. Well above the two-thirds threshold they needed to enact a special tax in California. Notably, this tracks from the previous attempt the City had made to pass a vacancy tax in 2018, where they received just under the 66.6% they needed to win.

However, as most good campaign strategists will tell you, the initial ballot test in a survey is often the least important question in a poll. We strongly suspected the measure would start off high, although this was perhaps a few points higher than we thought. But taking a closer look at even this question, and the rest of the survey, showed us there was a clear path to victory.

The Weakness Underneath

First, while Measure U polled at 72% yes, only 32% of voters felt strongly that way. (Foreshadowing – remember that number!) When it comes to raising taxes, voters that are not strongly in favor are open to conversion to a no vote in our experience, so we knew there would be a way forward.

The next sections of the survey showed us that path. The Mayor, who was the singular champion of the proposal, did not have the depth of support to personally drive this measure forward. Almost 60% of likely voters had never heard of him. Community groups on our side of the debate, including the High Desert Chamber of Commerce, had higher name ID (60% heard of) and a favorable ratio of 36% to 3%.

More importantly, the voters of the City did not believe the City was well run, and most importantly of all, the voters, by a nearly 2 to 1 ratio, felt the City did not manage their finances well. This is a BIG problem for a City asking for more money.

And the signature issue that the Measure was supposed to address, according to the Mayor and City – namely, cleaning up blighted and vacant properties – was named as the top issue in the City by only 6% of voters. Jobs, the economy, and inflation tested significantly higher.

In short, we had a measure with high (but weak) support, and a less than popular City, perceived not to manage their money well, asking for millions of dollars in higher taxes to pay for something the voters didn’t see as a top priority.

Highlighting the Avenues of Attack

As the survey continued, we tested many of the theories we had from our policy analysis on how to attack the measure’s details. Honestly, the survey showed a goldmine of vulnerabilities when we asked voters if they were more likely to vote for or against a measure if they knew the details of the proposal.

Top performing arguments included:

• Bait & Switch – that the 20 year tax promised spending on particular programs for 20 years but actually allowed the City to significantly change the spending after Year One.

• Cost of Living – that in the wake of 3 years of high inflation, this was the wrong time to be raising taxes that would just be passed on to consumers.

• Budget Mismanagement – That the City claimed they needed the money to support vital services, but in fact the City’s budget had continued to increase since the last time they proposed this tax.

• Unaccountable – that the so-called “accountability and oversight” components of the tax were a sham.

• Jobs & Economy – that the City should be working to bring new businesses and jobs to the community, not raising taxes.

We also tested the City’s arguments in favor of the measure, and while some tested fairly well, especially the argument that vacant properties in Adelanto were mostly owned by out-of-towners who didn’t care about Adelanto, but even this, their strongest argument, paled in comparison to our top five.

The Informed Ballot: Manna for Political Strategists

And the rubber hit the road when we asked voters again, after hearing arguments on both sides, how they would vote now. Support had already dropped from a lead of 72% to 16% to only 47% in support and 40% in opposition. Critically, it had dropped not only below the 67% needed to pass, but below even 50% needed for a general tax.

Of course, we dig much deeper into the data. Good pollsters (like Trevor Smith from Pulse) armed us with outstanding statistical analysis, showing which arguments truly had an impact on moving voters from Yes to No (or at least to undecided), and with which potential audience subgroups the different arguments resonated the most.

The Essence of Strategy: A Clear and Compelling Narrative Emerges

But at the strategic level, the narrative arc for this campaign was clear. The City wanted to argue that they had managed their budget well, and that out-of-town property speculators were the cause of both lower tax revenue and higher expenses to clean up blight, and therefore should pay higher taxes.

Our narrative was that the City had not managed its money well, left themselves wide loopholes to play bait & switch with the money, and had purposely written weak oversight and accountability into the plan. That, plus the electorate was very sensitive to inflation and the weak High Desert economy, making it a particularly bad time to ask for more taxes.

Planning Phase Up Next: Turning Strategy into an Actionable Plan

Armed with these insights, our Strategy phase delivered a clear narrative: this tax hike wasn’t just poorly timed—it was built on shaky arguments, vague accountability, and a deeply mistrusted city government.

Next up, we’ll show how the Planning phase turned that narrative into a winning campaign plan.