Throughout the country, upset victories were rare in the 1996 elections. That alone would have distinguished the surprising come-from-behind victory of Proposal E in Michigan. But passage of Proposal E also marked the first time that state voters approved land-based casino gaming since New Jersey voters authorized the Atlantic City casinos in 1976.

Published surveys repeatedly warned of certain defeat for the "yes" on E campaign. In April of 1996, newspaper polls showed 56 percent opposed and 38 percent favored the proposal to allow up to three casinos in the city of Detroit. Just three weeks before election day, the polls revealed no dramatic shift: 50 percent against, 40 percent for and 10 percent undecided. As veteran political observers know, the majority of undecided voters traditionally vote "no" on ballot measures. These facts led Detroit News pollster Steve Mitchell to reasonably assess based on the data that "even if proponents capture every undecided vote, they still don't have enough to win."

Challenge Conventional Wisdom

Conventional wisdom on gaming proposals lent even more weight to the predicted defeat of Proposal E. Observers cited voters' religious beliefs and skepticism over the economic benefits of casino gaming as the main reasons for the low level of support among voters surveyed. They felt these deep-seated beliefs would be nearly impossible to overcome, calling the chances for a "yes" on E victory a real longshot.

While the polls and prognostications were foreboding, they only confirmed what many gaming analysts already knew. The environment for pro-gaming measures throughout the country had become less than hospitable. The 1994 defeat of a $20 million pro-gaming campaign in Florida was but one recent and highly visible example.

However, our group was not prepared to yield to conventional wisdom without taking a closer look at the hand we were being dealt in Michigan.

We had hired the political consulting firm of Winner/Wagner & Mandabach based upon their specialization in ballot measures, win record, and reputation for telling clients the truth. Early in the year, we asked the firm to develop an in-depth poll to help determine if the campaign could be won and, if so, to develop a winning campaign strategy for us.

The Path to Victory

The strategic opinion survey, designed in conjunction with pollster Bill Hamilton, gave us a detailed map of voter attitudes. Based on the surface "snapshot" results, the campaign did not look winnable. Detroit voters supported casinos in their city, as shown two years earlier when they approved a non-binding measure that subsequently met with the governor's refusal to allow casinos. However, Detroit makes up only eight percent of the state's electorate. The majority of rural voters, particularly in conservative western Michigan, were strongly opposed to casinos in Detroit.

Despite these findings, Winner/Wagner & Mandabach partners Chuck Winner, Ethan Wagner, Paul Mandabach and Les Francis emerged from their in-house evaluation with a belief that Proposal E could be passed.

"Our conclusion that we could win was based on our analysis of sub-surface data found in the complex, 70-question strategic opinion survey," explained Paul Mandabach, firm president. In particular, "the comparative pro/con message strength and the power of 'yes' on E message 'push questions' led us to believe that with a well-designed measure, an adroit campaign, and, of course, a little luck, Proposal E could be passed."

This analysis, which did not gloss over pitfalls, helped to confirm our group's gut feeling that the "conventional wisdom" was wrong in the assumption that Michigan voters would never vote to establish casino gaming in Detroit.

Some of the key strategic components of the consultants' game plan included:

Pro-Michigan Framing. The issue would not be framed as pro-gaming, but as pro-Michigan-bringing back the $400 million in Michigan money now going to casinos across the river in Windsor, Canada.

Benefits Related Messages. Themes and arguments falling within the strategic pro-Michigan framework would emphasize the benefits of keeping the $400 million in Michigan.

Deliberate Understatement. The campaign would not over-promise or "hard sell." Conservative revenue projections and a low-key tone would be used. Media advertising production values would be simple.

With the aid of this professional analysis and an experienced team of legal colleagues, the measure was carefully written to meet the twin goals of being both sound public policy and politically viable. Some of the key provisions were:

Revenue Allocation. Casino tax revenues would be shared between the host city of Detroit and the rest of the state, thus providing economic benefits to all Michigan residents.

Revenue Dedication. The state's share of casino tax revenues would be dedicated to education and Detroit's share would support law enforcement and economic development. Elected officials would be prohibited from shifting the funds out of these designated categories.

Strict Regulation. No more than three casinos would be allowed in Detroit. A regulatory board with broad enforcement power would be established at the state, rather than the local, level.

Media Campaign Ante

A major component of our strategy was to delay mounting a paid media effort until late in the campaign. This would avoid rousing the opposition into action and allow us time to secure the $5 to $10 million that our research indicated was needed to run a winning media campaign.

We assumed that after we qualified Proposal E for the ballot, one or more of the national gaming companies would step in to help fund the campaign. But the slowed growth in the gaming industry, coupled with the bleak polling results regularly published in Michigan newspapers, crippled our funding efforts.

National companies, who were well-acquainted with the costly defeat of the 1994 Florida gaming initiative, were unmoved by the political consultants' belief in a Michigan victory. Some companies even conducted their own surveys on Proposal E. Lacking the research techniques and detailed analysis used by our consultants, they concluded the campaign was not winnable. Consequently, no funding from national gaming sources was to be had.

However, with just 24 days until the election, Detroit businessmen Tom Celani and Michael Malik stepped in and contributed over $4 million. Combined with significant prior funding from the Atwater Entertainment group of distinguished Detroit-based businesspeople, headed by Herbert Strather and Dr. Nellie Varner, and funds from the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Michigan, we were finally able to launch our statewide media campaign.

Luck of the Draw

Our protracted fundraising effort further delayed the start of what had long been planned as a late-breaking campaign. As luck would have it, this timing problem proved to be a strategic advantage.

The poll numbers had been so bad for so long that the opposition had been dormant, apparently assuming that we shared the prevailing belief that Proposal E was dead. Consequently, when our media campaign began, they were caught flat-footed. Once organized, the opposition ran radio and newspaper advertising, supported by grassroots leafleting. Using quotes from prominent elected officials depicting Proposal E as a bad deal for Michigan, the opposition claimed that "wealthy casino owners" would win and Michigan would lose.

18-Day Campaign

The polling provided the framework for our "yes" on E messages. Winner/Wagner & Mandabach brought in Sipple: Strategic Communications to work with them in developing television and radio ads. They also worked with the Lansing-based Marketing Resource Group, headed by Tom Shields, to target direct mail to swing voters. The media campaign focused on these themes:

Proposal E is pro-Michigan. One set of ads used the image of a $400 million bag of money moving from Detroit to Windsor, Canada, to depict the flow of dollars to Canadian casinos located a mere five minutes from Detroit, and stated that Proposal E would bring these dollars back to Michigan.

Proposal E is straight-forward. A "Voter Guide" television spot showed the actual ballot wording to visually reinforce the simplicity of Proposal E.

What benefits Detroit, benefits Michigan. An ad featuring popular Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer was produced by the Mayor's media consultant, David Axelrod. It aired in the final days of the campaign, and asked Michigan voters to help Detroit reduce its dependence on state aid.

Gambling is a question of personal choice. A set of citizen spokesperson ads appealed to a small but crucial block of swing voters. The citizens said that they did not gamble, but felt people who did should have the right to gamble in their own state, and should not have to go to Canada to do so.