MyDD :: State Parties Like Netroots Money; Don't Seem To Like Netroots

State Parties Like Netroots Money; Don't Seem To Like Netroots

by Chris Bowers, Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 03:53:34 PM EST

Over at Swing State Project, Bob Brigham (known at MyDD as blogswarm), writes about Jerome, Matt and Trippi's expulsion from an ASDC event in the context of wider netroots appreciation among Democrats (emphasis mine, Bob's original post has links to all of the state party websites he mentions):

In my humble opinion, the ADSC should have kicked out anyone who doesn't have a blog. I can't think of a single reason why a state party chair would not have a blog. In fact, in this "Year of the Blog" with blogs proving to be unmatched resources for raising money, engaging activists, and creating change, I believe it to be a sign of incompetence for a state Party to not have a blog.

I was shocked to discover that three-fourths of state Democratic parties do not have blogs. AL, AK, AZ, AR, CT, DE, FL, HI, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MA, MI, MS, MT, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, VA, WA, WV, WI all make the list of shame for not having a blog. Additionally, ID, NM, UT, and WY have blogs that they have decided not to use and MD's blog has only 2 posts.

While almost all of these states have a mechanism for accepting online donations, none of them decided to catapult their online campaigns by having a blog. Likewise, almost all of these websites ask people to volunteer without offering daily reasons why their time is need.

As NE and NV have demonstrated, a state party can spend 20 minutes to set up a free blog on blogger, put a link on their website, and be a modern Party in a half an hour.

If state parties want to do more, they could follow the lead of California's Bob Mulholland who uses his blog to bash Republicans, fire up activists, and raise money -- in real-time, almost every day.

Previously, bloggers have shown the abuse of the netroots by the Kerry / Edwards campaign, which ditched Meetup and primarily used their email list for fundraising, rather than message or GOTV.

This has to stop. Of course Democrats love the small, online donors--they brought in something like $300M for Democrats this cycle. However, the netroots and its donor base needs to be treated like much more than ATM machines. The best way to kill the new wave of small donations is to keep asking for money without offering other ways for people to feel connected to the campaign. In fact, typically, people need to feel connected to a campaign before you can even ask them to donate. This is a lesson many in the Democratic leadership do not seem to have learned yet. It is a lesson they better learn soon.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 6 Comments :: Post a Comment

Absolutely (none / 0)

If they don't learn this soon than that small donor base will dry up as quickly as it emerged.

One thing they might do is stop patting Terry McAuliffe on the back for "overseeing the greatest increase in Democratic donations" and instead applaud those who actually MADE the donations.

by Chris Andersen on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 04:16:58 PM EST

the McAuliffe stuff doesn't bother me (none / 0)

Everyone gets a gold watch on the way out the door.

Otherwise, yeah, the party has yet to wake up and smell the 21st Century, even (or especially) on the local level.

by Pachacutec on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 04:34:51 PM EST

Peasants with Pitchforks (none / 0)

Howard Dean's recent op-ed in the Hill [http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/120104/ss_dean.html] touched on much of this discussion, and there has been much celebration of how Dean for America got it right...

But I'm working on an extended diary that will seek to show how the rhetoric of the Dean campaign often exceeded the reality...

And that ultimately, the netroots were often handled with suspicion and hostility even by people with the best of intentions...

So, the big question remains:

Is any organization capable of combining the energy and ideas of it's grass/netroots constituency with a sophisticated, well-run management structure...

What's the Point?

by Vermonter on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 04:48:43 PM EST

It's Not Just Netroots (none / 0)

If I can slip into Old Fogey mode for a minute...

Back in '93, there was a great deal of excitement in Salt Lake City, UT: Clinton was in the White House and it felt like we had a real chance to break the Republican stranglehold on local politics. That didn't happen - we blew it, and Utah is still the reddest of the red states - and I carry scars from wounds inflicted by the leaders of the local Democratic organisation on three points:

- donations of money were gleefully accepted, but there was no mechanism for puting volunteers to work; the strong impression was given, that outsiders were troublemakers.

- the party was desperate to have its candidates win elections, primarily so that party operatives would have increased clout in local politics; the idea that politics might serve a higer purpose was pretty well ridiculed.

- the typical cadidate thus was a pale imitation of a Republican, and the organisation as a whole showed the timidity of dog that had been whipped one time too many; when a grassroots movement tried to shake things up and put forward some more-energetic candidates, the old guard squashed everything under the banner 'The Queers are Trying to Take Over!'. If they couldn't beat the Republicans, they could at least whip a bunch of punk reformers in their own party.

So... all of this bears a family resemblence to what I see as going on at the national level in the Democratic Party today - especially the 'shut up and open your wallet' attitude of the pros. This story paints a pretty grim picture, but I'm hoping that this time around we get it right.

Alain ( Go Utes! Fuck the Y! )

by alain2112 on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 08:12:48 PM EST

Re: It's Not Just Netroots (none / 0)

"donations of money were gleefully accepted, but there was no mechanism for puting volunteers to work; the strong impression was given, that outsiders were troublemakers."

That's unfortunately a problem in a lot of states. The Arizona party has the same cliquish atmosphere.

I don't see this as an issue over whether the party should move left or right. It's an issue of whether this should be a grassroots party or one controlled tightly from the top by party insiders. Somehow we are going to have to either get new party leadership that welcomes and incorporates the grassroots, or else make an end run around the current leadership entirely.

by ACSR on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 09:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The money supply won't dry up (none / 0)

It will simply bypass the Party organizations. We already saw this with the dKos dozen. And this effect will just get cemented in a non-Presidential election cycle. Because it is not just parties that can be up and running on Blogger in 20 minutes. Progressive, net-savvy candidates can and will.

There are tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of people like me, good ABB soldiers who lined up behind Kerry and gave real money. Because he was what we had. That will be different in in 2006 and decidedly in 2008.

Because everyone viscerally understands the EMILY principle (Early Money is Like Yeast). The next Howard Dean, who may even be the same Howard Dean, will not be strapped for early resources. There is a whole progressive, reality-based community that is hungry for real change, and even the poorest of us can afford to toss $10 into the pot.

I have said before, the money I donated to Howard Dean (more than $10) was the best money I ever spent. And given the right candidate I'll do it again.

by Bruce Webb on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 10:15:04 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.