Saving The Stragglers

It is now about bringing in the stragglers.

 Below is the SWS April survey on the Senate race with comparables for March and February. In analyzing the numbers the key statistic is relative voter preference i.e. you don’t have to be handsome, just the 12^th least ugly. Rankings are important for funding and bragging rights but are otherwise immaterial since all winners get the same ticket to the party.

Name     4/13 Preference(Rank)    3/13 Preference(Rank)  2/13Preference(Rank)

Legarda          59% (1)                                 59% (1)                     64% (1)

Cayetano          52% (2)                               57% (2)                     58% (3)

Binay              49% (3-4)                             47% (5-7)                 47% (7)

Villar               49% (3-4)                             47% (5-7)                 53% (4)

Escudero        47% (5)                                 48% (3-4)                 62% (2)

Aquino            44% (6)                                 42% (10)                   42% (9-10)

Pimentel         43% (7-8)                             47% (5-7)                 48% (5-6)

Ejercito           43% (7-8)                             48% (3-4)                 42% (9-10)

Angara            42% (9)                                 39% (12)                   39% (11-12)

Poe                  39% (10-11)                         40% (8)                     48% (5-6)

Trillanes         39% (10-11)                         44% (8)                     46% (8)

Enrile              37% (12-13)                         37% (13-14)             38% (13)

Honasan         37% (12-13)                         43% (9)                     34% (15)

Zubiri              35% (14-15)                         35% (15)                   39% (11-12)

Magsaysay     35% (14-15)                         37% (13-14)             32% 16)

Candidates 1-9 (Legarda, Cayetano, Binay, Villar, Escudero, Aquino, Pimentel, Ejercito, and possibly Angara) look reasonably safe so it is now about those in the cusp. The polls have a margin of error of plus or minus 2%: On this basis and assuming the elections were held today Poe, Trillanes, Enrile, Honasan, Zubiri and Magsaysay have a statistical chance of filling the last 3 slots.

What factors could most influence the final outcome for these six? In my opinion they are PNoy, Binay, money, headlines and organization.

The President sees the Senate race as the first real referendum on his Administration, hence the masthead Team Pinoy. With 6-7 of his team looking comfortable, the challenge for PNoy is to carry Poe, Magsaysay and Trillanes, I imagine in that order of preference (Risa looks a stretch but she could still surprise), for a resounding 9/12 or 10/12 vote of confidence. For this the President has to go all in. He has to hold the hand of each of them in dedicated ads, photo ops and sorties. He has to make the calls to the mega donors for the extra checks. He has to convince voters why their election will make the difference to his Presidency. He has to publicly hug them and kiss them as one of his own.

Binay has to do the same for Enrile, Honasan and Zubiri. He has the popularity and resources to tip over one but probably not all of them since the space is crowded (His dilemma: Favoring any one will only alienate him with the other two). The question is whether it is worth his political and financial capital to spoil the President’s party and further annoy him. Binay’s math was based on having enough UNA candidates to lock the Senate. It looks now like UNA will at best only be able to get in 5 which is short of what he needs.

The nice thing about Jojo is he can play any cards he is dealt. He knows when to fold, he knows when to raise. A reported Corona supporter, he handled the Chief Justice’s impeachment in stride. Similarly he will  only be temporarily fazed by a Team Pinoy victory knowing the Senate deck will be reshuffled post election. In short –and this is bad news for Jack, Gringo and Migz- Binay may just back off and chill out these next two weeks.

Erap and JPE are the other two Kings who were supposed to carry the UNA. Unfortunately, ERAP is preoccupied with his own Manila mayoralty race and has just been presented with a P300 million bill by the authorities for services rendered on his plunder case. JPE, I suspect, will now just focus on his son.

Money is a game changer in the sprint to the finish. The UNA seems to have the bigger war chest but with the polls where they are, its fat cats may just skip town. Some of the weaker candidates may even just take what money there is and run (away I mean).

Last minute negative headlines will trip some candidates. Expect dirty tricksters to  be up to no good. They will be furiously combing opponents’ closets for skeletons.

The ground game of voter mobilization and poll checking is the last big mover. Surveys are an indication of voter preferences. They do not necessarily translate to how the respondents will actually vote, if at all. Presently 55% of potential voters have not decided on their full slate. In 2010 and 2007, voters only voted on average for 7.8 and 9.1 respectively out of the 12 Senatorial positions; so filling up the undecided slots is critical.

Voter turn-out in mid-term elections is typically lower (in 2007 it was 66%) than in Presidential election years (in 2010 it was 74%) because of the lesser buzz. Getting out the vote could spell the difference in the close races. Local government, NGOs and blocs like religious organizations and the military; could play a decisive factor in this regard.  The Catholic vote, this could be your year.

I guess when all else fails there is always the phone: Hello, Garci?

Thank You

As a nation we do not do enough to recognize all the people who make ours a better place. Here is a list of those we owe a debt of gratitude. Without them we would not be the country we are.

Thank you, Kris, for paying P50 million in taxes in 2011 (At a top rate of 32%, this puts her gross income at over P156 million) and P32 million the previous year. You are the single most important reason for our investment upgrade. Your taxes help fund our national priorities like schools for the kids, healthcare for the poor and pork barrel for our struggling Congressmen. There are those –mainly, I suspect, menopausal women with excessive time and envy on their hands- who predicted you would abuse your position once your brother was in office. What do they have to say now? As for your supposed diva-ish behavior I say for P50 million you can do whatever you want -emote on national TV or even run for Vice-President in 2016 if that is what rocks you.

Thank you, Facebookers, tweeters and bloggers for holding our public officials accountable with your vigilance and courage at the risk of libel and imprisonment. Thank you for doing what traditional media is supposed to be doing but is not.

Thank you, Pulse Asia and SWS, for telling it the way it is or, as claimed, being paid to tell it the way it is.

Thank you, COMELEC, for restricting the airtime candidates have to lie to us.

Thank you, human rights activists and independent journalists, for putting truth, dignity and democracy ahead of yourselves.

Thank you, Mr. Vice-President, for heading the Philippine exhibit of pre-colonial art in Paris. Considering the Senatorial elections are just around the corner and your team’s standing, it was nice of you to take time to represent our country in this important cultural event. Paris is really nice in the spring.

Thank you Sirs Binay, JPE and Erap for selecting the UNA team that you did.

Thank you, Manny Pacquiao, for paying P 6.1 million in taxes last year when you grossed, what, over a billion? After two losses, a P400 million house in Forbes  and a net worth reportedly down to $85 million; you must be hurting. We hope the BIR understands.

Thank you, Manny Pacquiao, for being seven-time world champion -or is it now six? It is time to sit down with Bob Arum and Kim Henares about your future.

Thank you, Azkals, for proving that a team of half Filipinos can play half a decent game half of the time. The trick now is to figure out the other half.

Thank you, CBCP, for continuing to remind us why Catholics are leaving the Church in droves.

Thank you, China, for your patience and understanding on the Spratleys and for not simply nuking us.

Thank you, politicians, for encouraging your relatives to run for office. This makes it easier to know who not to vote for.

Thank you, Ma’am Ombudsman Carpio Morales, for bringing to justice all those who have been ripping us off for years.

Thank you, Chief Justice Corona, for telling us how many dollars you had in the bank.

Thank you, Associate Justice Tony Carpio, for putting the nation and the Supreme Court ahead of yourself. You may have been by-passed but are not forgotten.

On behalf of the 1% who own 99% of this country thank you, Finance Secretary Purisima, for the investment grade. After Kris you are who most made it possible.

Thank you, car smugglers, for flooding the market with fancy cars the middle class can now afford.

Thank you, foreign executives, for paying more in Philippine income taxes than our local billionaire businessmen.

Thank you, local billionaire businessmen, for suffering in silence after being omitted from the list of 500 top taxpayers.

Thank you, CEOs of PLDT, Manila Water, Meralco and other monopolies and near monopolies, for your tax checks. Hopefully this does not translate to higher utility bills for us.

Thank you, Liz Uy, Grace Lee, Len Lopez and other unheralded 20-somethings; for giving of yourselves to our President. Just know that what you do for our leader you do for the motherland.

Thank you, Mr. President, for running this country with honesty and humility and for not smoking in public. You have shown the world the nation we can be.

Thank you, Filipinos, for being one of the happiest people. Vote well in 2013 and even better in 2016.

(This piece was written on a bumpy, jetlagged, trans-continental flight. I apologize if I have omitted anybody else deserving of recognition.)

UNA PROBLEMA

With one month to go before the May 13 elections, the latest surveys indicate Team Pinoy will garner at least 9 of the 12 Senate slots. An outraged and incredulous UNA has asked the COMELEC to investigate SWS and Pulse Asia who conducted the polls. When you have to resort to shooting the messengers, you must be in trouble.

In truth the UNA has only itself to blame for its travails. I mean, have you seen its line-up? To recall  here is the list: There are the Kids (JV, Jack and Nancy) and then there is Mitos, Tingting, Ernie, Dick, Gringo and Migz (Loren, Chiz and Grace were supposed to complete the assembly but they were dropped for going AWOL). With no disrespect to the individual team members, a combination of GMA apologists and modified, overstaying and resurrected politicos whose only common denominator is they remember Annette Funichello in Beach Blanket Bingo; is not, I am afraid, a winning hand. Team Pinoy is no dream amalgam either but by comparison to UNA they look positively refreshing.

And here is where I don’t get it. The UNA Three Kings of Binay, Erap and JPE (and let us not forget Maceda) collectively have the political savvy and years to make Machiavelli and Nostradamus look like Boy Scouts; yet this was the best ticket they could come up with?  I understand about wanting the Kids but the rest of the team? It is no surprise Toby Tiangco, the UNA campaign manager, has lately been seen tearing his rather nice head of hair. To him I can only say: “We feel for you, man.” Compared to his mission, the Republican Party’s quest for the White House looks like a stroll in the park.

The Senatorial candidates currently fall into 3 buckets: The top three (Legarda, Cayetano and Escudero); the middle bucket currently occupied by Ejercito, Binay, Villar, Pimentel and Poe, all of whom should be safe; and the last bucket of slots 9-12 in which Angara, Aquino, Trillanes, Enrile, Honasan, Jun Magsaysay and Zubiri have a statistical chance of squeaking in. Over the last 3 months, Enrile, Honasan and Zubiri have lost momentum while Aquino and Jun Magsaysay have gained traction. Jack has the baggage of his past, Port Irene, the Senate Christmas bonus and political dynasties. Gringo is seen as past his expiry date. Migz could have done without his comments on Kiko Pimentel which even by Philippine political standards were low blows.

Sixty days into the official campaign things are starting to clear up. The endorsements of Binay, Erap and Enrile have not been a factor and in some cases may actually have been a liability. The main concern of the Big Three now seems to get their offspring elected while minimizing the political and financial capital they have to expend on the others. There is enough headwind without having to carry deadweight across the finish line. With his team facing a shellacking and only four weeks to go (and Nancy comfortably ensconced), VP Binay has decided the best use of his time is to lead a Philippine exhibit of pre-colonial art in Paris. This tells you all you need to know about his commitment to the cause.

By comparison, the endorsement of the President has been weightier than many pundits forecast, witness the momentum of Grace Poe, Bam Aquino and Jun Magsaysay. The PNoy magic is less evident with Risa Hontiveros although she could be a last minute surprise.

No one Senatorial candidate has dominated the race, defined a compelling message nor caught the imagination of the public (certainly none appear Presidential material for 2016). This could be due to the cacophony of competing slogans which have tended to cancel each other; and to the limitation on campaign advertising. In this din, the President’s popularity and record have stood out as a beacon which explains why his endorsement has overshadowed that of the UNA Big Three. Binay will be learning from all this.

It is unclear so far the impact money has had on the Senatorial race. It has arguably worked for Villar, but not for Madrigal. Risa could be suffering from not having enough of it but even enough is not helping Enrile. I guess Big Money will only start to talk in the closing two weeks of the campaign.

Right now things are looking up for Team Pinoy. However, one should not make too much of it. The incoming Senators will develop a life of their own once in office. With 6 years in power, they will politically outlive the President’s term and will have to start thinking for themselves. The deck will get reshuffled post May 13.

BBB-

Fitch, an international credit rating agency, just upgraded the credit of the Philippines to BBB-, the lowest of the investment grades. S & P, another rating agency, is about to do the same soon. We are now with the likes of Azerbaijan, Colombia, Iceland and India; higher than Indonesia (BB) but lower than Thailand (BBB+).

An investment rating is an assessment of a country’s ability to pay its debts, a supposed seal of financial housekeeping. Countries are divided into investment grade and non-investment grade following an arbitrary scale from AAA (Australia, Canada, Singapore and several Scandinavian countries) to CCC (Cyprus). The U.S. and China have a rating of AA+ and AA- respectively. The closest the Philippines has come to an investment rating was in the mid-1990’s under FVR and in the first years under GMA.

In addition to the alphabetical ranking, countries are classified as stable, positive (likely to be further upgraded), or negative (likely to be downgraded). Fitch has classified us as stable.

There are three companies that dominate the credit ratings industry–Moody’s, S & P and Fitch. Incidentally, these are the same companies that rated Enron as investment quality just before it went bankrupt. They classified several European nations (Spain, Italy) as worthwhile until it was determined they really are in trouble. These agencies are currently under investigation by U.S. authorities for their role in the mortgage fiasco that almost brought down the world banking system, ripping off thousands of innocent investors. They had sanctified –and collected millions of dollars in fees in the process -various mortgage products as triple A which subsequently proved to be junk.

 So, yeah, like the blessing of a pedophile priest, we should view these rating agencies’ endorsements for what they are, often conflicted, many times unreliable and occasionally dangerous. Yet because institutional investors rely on them for legal compliance they are perceived to have value -and in the game of finance perception is reality. As a result of our new found status, more institutional funds can now buy our sovereign debt thereby lowering our cost of money and, God forbid, encouraging us to get further into hoc (The Philippines can now borrow dollars 10 years at 3.41% p.a., cheaper than higher rated countries like Italy (BBB+) at 4.38% and Spain (BBB) at 4.75% which simply confirms the flaws in the rating system).

An investment rating will also encourage direct foreign investment and, hopefully, jobs.

 Our improved rating testifies to our strides in cleaning house -as indeed we have and kudos to the Administration for it.  However let us understand what an investment grade rating does not mean.

It does not mean we can as a nation necessarily pay our debts. By definition one can only retire one’s obligations by creating surpluses. Yet even our finance team acknowledges we will be running budget deficits –and therefore further increasing our debt- for the foreseeable future albeit perhaps as an increasingly lower percentage of our GDP.

An investment grade rating does not mean all Filipinos are better off, only that some  are better off, principally capitalists and landowners. Since PNoy’s inaugural in June 2010, the stock market has risen by 206%, the peso has appreciated by 15%, real estate and corporate profits by over 50%. Yet the average daily wage in constant U.S. dollars from 2010 to 2012 (the latest available) has dropped (!) from $8.91 to $8.74 and the underemployment rate has increased from 17.8% to 20.9%. Surveys indicate people are hungrier than before. At the same time, rising property prices has put housing outside of the means of the lower class and increasingly of the middle class.

An investment grade does not mean that justice for the poor is better served.

It does not mean that fewer journalists and human rights activists are being killed.

It does not mean our streets are safer, our children better educated, our homeless sheltered or our weaker cared for.

It does not mean the environment is better protected, in fact the contrary may be the case.

It does not mean we are a stronger democracy.

So while an investment grade might be an occasion to toot our horn, it is not a measure of the quality of life of Filipinos. We can trot it out as proof of progress but unless it benefits the man in the street, we must ask how meaningful it really is.

It was P6,300

It was P6,300, less than the cost of a pair of designer jeans or a nice meal for four.

It was the value of the life of a 16-year old UP freshman. It was the first semester tuition of Kristel Tejada, her ticket out of squalor, one she could not afford for which she took her life.

The tragedy of Kristel is not that it happened to an aspiring scholar but that it happens everyday. There are thousands of our young struggling to keep themselves in school, usually by selling themselves in that profession where only single names are used.

Kristel is the face of the wider conversation that needs to take place in our country on the role of the state in higher education. The central issue is quality vs. affordability: Quality education, worldwide, is expensive and now outside the reach of most. The cost of a U.S. Ivy League education has risen by 45 % over the last ten years, over twice the rate of inflation. Ateneo’s basic annual fee of about P155,000 is one tenth of an Ivy education of $40,000; but is still 50% higher than the country’s per capita income of P106,000.

In the Philippines we have state schools which are supported by the Government; and private schools where tuitions are unregulated but must be justified with the CHED (at least 70% of any increase must go to teaching and 20% to operating costs).

In 2012 the DepEd had a budget of P239 billion, almost twice that of the next highest, the DPWH. The money is for primary/secondary schooling which is rightfully the priority. State universities have a separate allocation of P26 billion of which about 40% goes to two universities alone, UP and Mindanao State University. This translates to P29,000 for each of the 900,000 enrolled but most of this goes to salaries (about 75%), administration and facilities with little left over for financial aid. The state must find other means to subsidize higher education. Here are some thoughts:

1. Enhance the student loan program- In the U.S. 80% of students are on some form of financial support (the average loan for a graduate is $31,000). In the Philippines, the SSS claims it has P7 billion in unavailed student loans which suggests its conditions are too stringent, the paperwork too daunting or the cost too high. Banks are reluctant to extend student financing because of the high default rate (up to 19% in the U.S.).

To spur private sector student lending, the Government should consider a guarantee facility similar to what is available for housing. At the same time banks should be “encouraged” to finance education (as it does with agriculture) with, say, tax credits for the expected losses.

2. Increase scholarships- Student loans can only be part of the solution because of the underlying burden. What is needed are more private grants and endowments.   Following the user rule, there might be an education tax on (big) business. Since corporates are the principal beneficiary of better education, they should arguably shoulder the cost of higher learning in the way the sin tax will fund health care.

3. Mandate that a percentage of all pork barrel go to student support- The P196 million that three Senators blew on two bogus NGOs could have funded 31,111 Kristel scholarships.

4. Promote private sector participation- Get corporates to adopt public high schools in exchange, say, for naming rights. This should free up funds for higher education.

5. Impose a scholarship quota in private universities- Private education is a lucrative business (some universities are publicly listed). The quota could be based on “profits” and should be part of any justification for higher tuition fees.

6. Streamline the DepEd and pass the savings to state schools- The corruption in the DepEd is said to be worst than at the DPWH, Customs or BIR. A 10% department savings would release P24 billion, thereby doubling the possible support for state universities. At the same time the hundreds of state colleges should be rationalized to improve productivity and quality.

7. Mandate community work for subsidized students e.g. teaching after graduation- This will increase the size and quality of the teacher pool.

To summarize:

1. The state must increase its investment in higher education. It is what drives the economy, redistributes income, and enhances social mobility. Jobs, housing and healthcare are important but it all starts with learning.

2. Education should be the ability to learn, not the ability to pay.

3. Student financing should be transparent, accessible and affordable. There should be an institutional framework to increase financial aid.

4. The private sector should be “motivated” to fund educational endowments and  scholarships.

5. Beneficiaries should give back to the community.

The poor have a right to the bounty of this nation and the only path is education. This is Kristel’s message and if it gets us to do something about it, she would not have died in vain.

A Waste Of Our Money

Pork barrel: “The granting of government funds to legislators for their local projects. The term is said to originate in the practice in the U.S. of giving slaves a barrel of salted pork as a reward for a job done.”

                                                            – 0 -

It’s more fun in the Senate.

The recent Commission on Audit findings on supposed irregularities in the (mis)use of the Private Development Assistance Funds -more commonly known as PDAF or pork barrel- of Senators Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and Bong Revilla; is the latest in a series of controversies that have hounded this august body.

It appears these three endorsed P195 million of their PDAFs to the ZNAC Rubber Estate Corp. and thence to Pangkabuhayan Foundation Inc. (PFI), a seemingly bogus organization.

The Senators, being otherwise preoccupied, are reportedly unaware as to how the money disappeared. They claim they selected the recipients from a list prepared by the Dept. of Agriculture. Outraged, they have asked for an investigation (has the COA not already done that?) of this wanton waste of taxpayer money while castigating the DA for its sloppy work. The Senate had previously investigated the P728 million fertilizer scam involving the DA (yes, the same department); so it is not as if the MO was new to them. Yet, apparently, they fell for it again. The COA Chair, Grace Pulido-Tan, has  absolved the three Senators of liability.

Yes, I know what you are thinking, all of you with the quizzical looks: How did ZNAC and PFI get on the preferred DA list? What was so compelling about their projects three seasoned (and closely allied) Senators simply had to endorse them for not one but two consecutive years? Did they or their (taxpayer supported) staff exercise any due diligence or did they just throw darts at the DA’s list? Would they be this flippant about spending P195 million of their own money? I mean, did ZNAC or PFI even send a thank you note?

The controversy raises the bigger question of what indeed is the role of PDAFs. Pork barrel is theoretically designed to help legislators finance projects in their districts. This might make a little sense for Congressmen who are familiar with the special needs of their localities; but none for Senators whose mandate is nationwide. This is the work of the Executive branch.

The President has full discretion on pork barrel, it is part of the national budget he presents for approval to Congress. In 2012 the President recommended and Congress (quickly) approved P24.9 billion in such money to be divided among 23 Senators at P200 million each (Total: P4.6 billion) and 287 Congressmen at P70 million each (Total: P20 billion) with the balance of P300 million, presumably, for odds and ends. The money does not go directly to the legislators but to projects they endorse which at any time may include roads, irrigation and, reportedly, cock pits. There is no suggestion (OK, I lie, there are various suggestions) the venerable legislators receive a kick-back from the projects.

 For the Senators, P200 million a year over 6 years is P1.2 billion so there is indeed the temptation to mess around. This might answer the age-old question why candidates are prepared to spend P100 million for a Senate seat.

The PDAF is additional to the P 9.8 billion the Budget assigned to Congress for administrative costs and, if there are savings, to “bonuses” for legislators. The latter, incidentally, do not have to account for the money with receipts (as the BIR requires of ordinary citizens), they simply have to certify –I am not kidding- the funds are well spent.

There are three reasons to ban pork barrel. At P25 billion it is the single largest inducement to legalized theft. As a perspective, it is about 8% of our budget deficit. More to the point, it is 25 times the money allocated to build schools for our kids.

Two, pork barrel makes a mockery of the Constitutional provision for separation of powers: It effectively allows the President to “buy” the legislative branch. This might work well with a good man in office but works horribly otherwise.

Three, pork barrel perpetuates family dynasties and the politics of patronage. By giving incumbents the financial wherewithal to ingratiate themselves with their constituencies, it makes it difficult for newcomers to compete for elected office.

Nowhere is it written -not in the Constitution, not in any statute- that our legislators are to be granted such behest. However for the President it presents a conundrum: How can he cut the lifeline of lawmakers whose co-operation he needs to govern? The President could not have ousted CJ Corona nor passed the RH Bill without it.

So if the nation is looking to kill pork barrel, I suggest we not hold our breath.

As for ZNAC and PFI, I guess it is just another rip-off that gets away.

Anatomy Of A Campaign (Part II)

(In Part II Sen. Serge Osmena talks about what it takes to win a campaign).

V. Funding

Although some will overspend, a Senatorial campaign with the right candidate can be run for P50-100 million depending on how much ground he/she has to cover. Eighty percent of a budget goes to the air war i.e. TV and radio ads. A 30 second prime time ad costs around P500,000 (less 30% discount for volume buying). Since ads are spread over the day, the blended cost is less than this. The COMELEC has restricted national candidates to a maximum of 120 minutes of TV and 180 minutes of radio time. Assuming a blended cost of P300,000 per 30 seconder, the maximum theoretical budget for TV is P72 million (plus VAT).

Budget allocation is important. The biggest bang for your buck (measured in Pesos/1000 audience) is TV. Radio is needed to cover areas without electricity. A good media budget might be 66% TV, 22% radio and 12% posters/leaflets.

A candidate who polls in the top 12 can expect his coalition to shoulder up to half his expenses. To establish winnability, the candidate will first have to finance his run through personal funds, borrowings and contributions from friends and supporters.

The 80/20 rule applies to funding: At least 80% of monies comes from 20% of donors. Single contributions of over P500,000 make up over 90% of contributions.

Many campaigns do not properly budget and run out of money in the last two weeks when the funds are most needed.

VI. Strategy

Three things are needed to win: The message, the communication of the message   and the execution of the strategy.

 To frame a message one must first understand voters’ concerns and then connect the two. “Walang corrupt, walang mahirap” worked because it linked corruption with the plight of the poor.

A message must be genuine and reflect the voters’ perception of the candidate’s persona. One message does not fit all. PNoy’s anti-corruption message worked because people associated him with integrity. This overcame criticisms on his accomplishments (or supposed lack thereof) and work ethic.

A message must focus on what the public believes to be your qualities, not what you  believe these to be. If voters like what they think is your green hair, you should capitalize on this even if false or unimportant to you. The voter is always right.

Messages should be simple and repeated like a mantra. The biggest mistake is straying off message or worse, developing multiple massages, or worse, changing messages mid-stream.

 Scheduling is a big part of communicating a message as well as conserving a candidate’s energy. It is one of the campaign manager’s biggest headache: Should the candidate attend a rally, a TV/radio interview, a fund raiser or stay home and rest? Rallies bring you to the people (“I was there”) but the exposure is local compared to a nationwide TV interview.

VII. Tactics

Here are some basic rules (These apply more for binary races than multi-candidate contests):

1. Define yourself and your agenda before your opponents do it for you. P-Noy defined his integrity before his rivals could define his supposed inexperience. (In the last U.S. presidential election, the Democrats profiled Romney as a flip-flopper, a tag Mitt was never able to shed).

2. Protect your home base.

3. Do not bother campaigning in enemy territory. Concentrate in areas where you have better upside.

4. Always counter black propaganda: Silence connotes there is substance.

5. Never assume anything- Elections can turn on a late surge (or a Hello, Garci).

VIII. Campaign Myths

1. The endorsements of P-Noy, Binay and Erap are critical- These endorsements are over-rated. Voters know who is backing whom. They also do not help differentiate candidates within the same coalition. Polls show voters have decided on 8 of the 12 Senatorial slots. An all-in endorsement could make a difference for the last 4.

2. The local machinery is critical- Local officials are too busy running for election to attend to the concerns of national candidates (unless the latter can contribute legitimacy, popularity or money).

3. Money can buy a national position- Money is a necessary but not sufficient condition to get elected. At some point it is subject to diminishing returns: More spending begets fewer and fewer new votes. P-Noy was elected with a smaller budget than his opponents. (Let’s see how Madrigal and Villar fare in May).

4. An election is about name recall- In the last 40 years, 29 Senators failed to get re-elected. Serge came out #4 in his home town of Cebu city in 2001 (A previous Senator who ran for President in 2010 is not ranking): So much for name recall. All the top candidates will have the necessary voter awareness by election day. Name endearment is more important than name recall.

IX. Who will win in May 2013

The man made a prediction but I am not talking.