The Arizona Human Rights Foundation, AHRF, hired me last fall to do in-depth psychographic research on the Protect Marriage Arizona (PMA) initiative. PMA would have defined marriage as only between and man and a woman and it also would have denied benefits, such as healthcare, legal and other social benefits, to unmarried couples. The former aspect is the `basic' anti-gay marriage position but this one, sponsored by the Center for Arizona Policy, the local affiliate of James Dobson's Focus on the Family, went even further with the denial of existing benefits to unmarried couples, gay or straight.

The results of the research were positive for AHRF but also very sobering. While holding a lead in No votes in ballot tests, good news indeed, we also found that if the issue was framed as a gay marriage issue, AHRF and Arizona Together (the campaign organization) would have serious problems. Supporters would be able to keep the issue in the `lizard brains' of voters. Bad news, indeed. AHRF and the campaign would likely lose.

So my basic strategic finding was: this ain't about gay marriage. Further, it's about everybody, the denial of rights and benefits for all Arizonans. Gay or not. The summary general finding and targeting was simple and straightforward: 1) frame the issue as rights and benefits of all Arizonans, 2) shore up the blue base with that messaging and 3) go on offense directly against the red extremists, particularly religious extremists, defining and pushing them in the voters' minds to the fringe. This pulls in the light-blue to light-red moderate voters by giving them a positive reason to vote No, keeping their rights and benefits, and it also provides them the picture of who the `bad dogs' in this gig are: extremists. That positive/negative explanation for voters gets the victory margin. A tight one, but eminently doable.

This, to put it mildly, was political and campaign heresy, especially to the national Human Rights Campaign (HRC). They insisted the campaign be about gay marriage and gay rights. They argued that was the focus of all their previous campaigns and that was what would work. Arizonans would rise in support of gay rights with just the right mix of messaging and saturation.

The only problem with that is they had lost 20 in a row doing it. Duh! And our data were conclusive: focus on all Arizonans, not just gay Arizonans. Double duh!

Thus, this past spring is when two of the smartest and gutsiest progressives around stood up to HRC. State representative Kyrsten Sinema and former state senator Steve May, heading up Arizona Together, started building campaign infrastructure outside of dependence on HRC. They hired a communications consulting group, Riester-Robb (who did an excellent job, BTW. H/T to you folks), a campaign manager, started enlisting volunteers, built a web site and started fundraising. HRC eventually came on board to support Arizona Together, although I don't know the details.

I wasn't involved with the campaign itself but I can tell you they did it right throughout. Here's a write-up on the race in today's Arizona Republic. Consistent messaging on the loss of benefits looms large. Exactly.

The fact of Arizona's win on this one is proof-positive they did it right. The fact that Arizona stands alone in defeating these onerous initiatives, including seven additional  losses this cycle, is clear and convincing evidence that the Beltway mindset doesn't have a clue out here in the real world.

I'm really proud of Kyrsten, Steve and the whole Arizona Together team. Progressive, smart, savvy and gutsy. Great people. And further, Beltway insiders, NARAL is an example, have proven themselves irrelevant and hopelessly compromised  this election cycle. This is why the netroots must continue to push, continue to lead and, when we do so, we will continue to win.

So, the real analysis of this one is: supposedly `red' Arizona supports progressive policy when it's presented properly. Say what?

Is that a smile I see on your face?