My ATM Pin Number - Or Fundraising On-line

Much has been made in recent days about the Kerry campaign's attempts to withdraw, over and over again, from the ATM machine known as the netroots.  Whether it is discussions about the endless fundraising emails to folks in non "swing states," or Kos's contention that, "we aren't going to put out for campaigns without getting something in return;" the topic has been in the blogs as of late.

Kos also said something that I overlooked the first time I read his post, but might be the most important quote in the entire piece.

Did the Dean campaign win? No. But there's a reason people are still loyal to Dean even after Kerry has been abandoned by legions of Democrats. Unlike Kerry's effort, what Dean and Trippi built was the stuff of political movements, and it was built on a foundation of communication.

Maybe John Kerry didn't need a political movement; he needed us for seven months.  But only one race every four years is for the presidency.  

For the other 468 federal races every 2 years, look below the jump...

For the rest of 468 seats up for grabs on the Federal level, if you are going to fundraise effectively on-line, you are best served, "building the stuff of political movements."

I chose to write about this because I keep talking to congressional candidates for '06 races that say some form of, "We will just tell them that we are running a progressive campaign and we need grassroots support to raise 'x' amount of dollars in so many days."

Wrong answer...

If you want to withdraw cash using my ATM card (and millions like me), if you want to build that "political movement" on-line, you better know the pin number.  John Kerry didn't know the pin number, and 99% of candidates running for office that have now decided to reach out to the netroots don't know it either.

So what are the digits?

Most ATM pins have four digits.  For the sake of simplicity, we'll keep it at that number as well; although there is much more a candidate can do if they want to reach out effectively to the netroots.

First Number: Be willing to communicate with us

Campaigns set aside time every week for fundraising calls, block-walking, attending state and county-wide events, but if you want that first digit you need to be willing to communicate with us, directly.

Campaigns should set aside time every week, if not day, to communicate with us directly.  That time should be just as important as call-time and block-walking time.  Just like a good fundraising director will freak out if the candidate doesn't make 30 calls an hour, the Internet Outreach Coordinator should do the same.  Yes, all campaigns should have one of them.  And they should have a seat at the table right next to the campaign manager, communications director, finance director, and field director.

The Internet is the only medium available that allows for mass two-way communication.  Constituents want to hear from you, and if they can get an answer back immediately, that's all the better.  They want to know what is going on in the campaign they are supporting.  And you know what?  They deserve it.

That means you have a blog affiliated with your campaign, and the candidate posts on it, the campaign manager posts on it, etc...  If it is just some unpaid intern that comes in 3 days a week and posts from home, you got a problem there.

Your blog also needs some variety, and should be in a "human voice."  I am sure Bob Brigham has much more to say about the use of blogs by a campaign.  It is a subject that I can go on about for hours.

And that doesn't mean you are just blogging on your own website.  "Think outside the webpage."  There are already communities that have hundreds, thousands, and hundreds of thousands of members.  If you are an unknown candidate and believe that people are going to come to your webpage just because you put one up, your thinking is fatally flawed.

And dammit, every communication should not include a link to your contribution page.

Second Number: We want to be involved in the effort

And more involved than just, "hey we need 4,000 literature pieces for the county fair coming up."  Sure, it is nice to know what our money is going towards, but in the grand scheme of things, we want some form of "ownership" of the effort.

That means soliciting our ideas and implementing the best of them.  The ideas of 50,000 will almost always be better than the ideas of five people who live their entire lives inside of a campaign HQ.

This means giving your supporters in the netroots the tools available to make a difference for your effort.  Give them the tools to throw a house party, create a .pdf file for the campaign, listen to them about your message and refine it when necessary.

Take one of the biggest successes of the Jeff Seemann for Congress campaign, "campaign manager for a day."  It was a media bonanza for us, fundraising success, it built our email list, drove people to our website in unheard of numbers for a congressional race, and most importantly, got people very excited about our effort in the 16th district of Ohio.

You know how that idea was born?

A bunch of us were sitting around at like 1 AM, having a nightcap (or 5), and talking about how we can simultaneously thank to the netroots for all of their support and give them ownership of the campaign.

The results of the effort speak for itself.

I answered 90% of the press calls for the events, and believe me there were alot.  One of the things that got me the most frustrated was when media would ask, "Are you worried they will pick things bad for the campaign?  What if they select for Jeff to sleep in until 10 AM?"  We even had members of our staff (who shall remain nameless -- while being instrumental in the idea) who said, "we will guide them toward the selections we want them to make."

Wrong answer.

These people in the netroots support you and want what is best for the campaign.  They have now become invested in the effort; either financially or with their own time and ideas.  I cannot stress enough that to a certain extent, if you want the rewards, you have to let go.  It has been my experience that this legion of die-hard activists will not steer you wrong.  They NEVER did for us.

Third Number: Opinion Leaders

On-line is no different than off-line in this respect.  There are certain opinion leaders that carry alot of sway within a community, the net is no different.  For the Seemann campaign, we caught a break.  When the whole mercenary flap happened on Kos, Jeff stepped in and placed an ad.  Had this not happened, we might have never even gotten our foot in the door -- although I can assure you we would have tried.

And the thing about these opinion leaders is, they are often a fickle bunch.  The best of them (in my mind): Jerome, Kos, Matt Stoller, Atrios, Jesse & Ezra from Pandagon understand quite well when someone is just trying to cash in on the netroots and who really "gets it."

They understand it because, for a few of them, they helped invent it.  If you think you are going to pull a fast one on them and use them for the supporters, think again.

They all have their own reasons for supporting the candidates they do -- it might be issues, it might be the opponent they are running against, it might be that they are just a great all-around candidate, and it might be something else.

Reach out to them.  With the netroots ATM card, their word is just as good as when MoveOn sends out a fundraising email, or DFA does the same.

The opinion leader concept and two-step flow of communication theory holds true just as well on-line as it does off.

Fourth Number: Your positions on the issues/your opponent

I'll combine these two into one because I believe they are both important, and I talked earlier about the Pin Number only having four digits.

If you are a progressive candidate, you are at an advantage on-line.  These are communities filled with activists who often believe in positions that candidates might find tough to back.

Let me give two examples:  First, you have someone like Jeff Seemann whose liberal (I'm not ashamed of the word) stances on the issues made it alot easier for us to gather a following within the netroots.  When people would ask Jeff questions on places like Kos or via email, we had no problem giving them the answer they wanted to hear, while being honest with them at the same time.  This helped.

The other example is Brad Carson.  Brad had a decidedly centrist stance on most of the issues; even going as far as to align himself with President Bush multiple times on a much watched and discussed debate with his opponent on Meet The Press.  People were pissed.  Some flat out stopped giving to Carson when they watched the debate, saying he was more Conservative than his Republican opponent.

But Brad Carson was running against a nutcase; Tom Coburn, the doctor who likes to sterilize patients without their consent and then bill Medicaid.  Which provides a great segue into my final point -- the opponent...

Yes, it helps if you have a dirt-bag for an opponent.'

I am not sure how many people donated to the Kerry campaign on-line because of the campaign that was run vs. his opponent.  Anybody but Bush, right?  If it was Final Jeopardy, I would be willing to wager all of my cash that Kerry's fundraising success was in large part due to disgust for the president, and the fact that he was running for the highest office in the land.

But this carries over down the ladder as well.

Take Tom DeLay's opponent, Richard Morisson.  Or Katherine Harris's opponent, Jan Schneider.  Both of them did relatively well raising money on-line, in large part because of the dislike of their opponents by the progressive community at-large.

So, good news for whoever gets out of the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania.  If you are running against Rick Santorum, there are plenty of people out there that want to help -- and they are ready to help yesterday.

Take it for what its worth.  Just wanted to spit some of my thoughts out on "paper" after spending some time thinking about the Kos vs. Exley debate.

Maybe this information will help candidates in 2005/2006 recognize that support from the netroots is like riding a bike downhill -- if you learn how to do it, can keep your balance, it is the gift that keeps on giving.

Bottom line:  It isn't fundraising requests that breed successful netroots fundraising.  I would even venture to say that the fundraising application isn't the most important of the potential uses of the Internet.

Unfortunately, right now it's the language that most everybody outside of the netroots speaks in.

Tim


Display:


One more thing... (3.00 / 2)

I am sure I left much out in writing the above.  Please feel free to add to it.

Also, check out Swing State Project for a decent on-going discussion about the topic.

Specifically, Bob's post on Modern vs. Post-Modern campaigns.

Tim

by Tim Tagaris on Thu Dec 23, 2004 at 11:46:20 AM EST

Actual Democracy (none / 0)

As opposed to the pan et circenses that we have today. The people always get the government they deserve; what does ours say about us?
by Paul Goodman on Thu Dec 23, 2004 at 02:42:34 PM EST

cult classic (none / 0)

This post will be an instant cult classic for the blogosphere. This should be required reading.

One thing I think people are beginning is that the online politics are very similar to traditional campaigns, online is just in a different format and presents more potential. Look at what Tim says and you'll see he calls for retail politics, involving of the base, winning key endorsements, and contrasting.

I understand there is a fear about online campaigning -- that is mostly born from a lack of understanding. If candidates are willing to risk doing better I think many will find that the traits that made them successful in traditional politics will keep them successful online.

However, since online politics allows underdogs to leverage power, out-of-touch politicians should be worried. Because the internet threatens their invulnerability of incumbency. Which is a good thing for democracy.

by Bob Brigham on Thu Dec 23, 2004 at 02:43:20 PM EST

ping (3.00 / 1)

Tim,

I'm working at NDN for Simon's prospective chair race.  We have a special situation, in that there are 447 DNC members who vote.  What would you suggest?

Also, my email is matt@bopnews.com.  Please email me.

Thanks.

by Matt Stoller on Thu Dec 23, 2004 at 02:44:22 PM EST

how will the insiders react? (none / 0)

The people that manage candidates will freak at the idea of listening to the 'roots.

"They're not representative of the people who vote. They're over-educated, activist, elistists who don't know how swing voters think."

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Thu Dec 23, 2004 at 02:55:03 PM EST

Re: how will the insiders react? (none / 0)

There's some logic here.

We need swing voters who are barely paying attention to win a campaign any place to the left of Berkeley.

However, just because we (the net root people) aren't swing voters who are barely paying attention doesn't mean we don't know people like them, and know how they think.

by Geotpf on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 01:12:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Allow me to play devil's advocate (none / 0)

if you want to help in a campaign then there are two things to do: 1. help raise money to get the message out, and 2. help use your time to get the message out. If you are not doing one of those two things, then all the blogging in the world will not deliver any votes.
by mrgavel on Thu Dec 23, 2004 at 03:30:29 PM EST

Re: Allow me to play devil's advocate (none / 0)

What's the difference between candidate A that raises money and activates volunteers and candidate B that doesn't?
Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Thu Dec 23, 2004 at 04:06:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Allow me to play devil's advocate (none / 0)

So the netroots have NO role to play in what that message might be? Why, then, should I get involved?
by sjs1959 on Thu Dec 23, 2004 at 04:13:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Allow me to play devil's advocate (none / 0)

Is that you Shrum???
by Bob Brigham on Thu Dec 23, 2004 at 04:45:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Allow me to play devil's advocate (none / 0)

Here is my thoughts on the responses to the comment I posted: if you believe that the netroots should be developing the message, fine, but in the final analysis you need to get that message out. To get the message out you need either advertising or volunteers to carry the message.

I think that blogs and the internet are great at activating volunteers, and actually it is the source of some very good ideas, but it can't stop there. How many people who have posted online have gone on to either give money or work in a campaign by doing the work that gets votes?

by mrgavel on Thu Dec 23, 2004 at 06:17:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

bloggers walk precincts (none / 0)

The key to activation is that it creates real world gains. When people are empowered, they do what needs to be done. When people get fired up online, they walk precincts. The internet spurs volunteering.

The key is that internet and post-modern realities need to be incorporated in campaign planning, not just added-on to out-dated strategies.

It isn't about money, it is about votes. The internet can cut out the middleman and allow candidates to spend on media creation instead of media distribution (which conflict-of-interest consultants value for the easy cash). Instead of ATMs, the netroots are supporters and understanding how to communicate with these supporters allows campaigns to maximize supporter potential.

The money lust is a chip on the shoulder of consultants who lost old campaigns due to a lack of money. But money isn't a silver bullet (ask Daschle). It all comes down to votes.

However, money is still important and the blogosphere -- when properly used -- delivers plenty of cold, hard cash.

by Bob Brigham on Thu Dec 23, 2004 at 06:35:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bloggers walk precincts (none / 0)

Do we have any data on how many people who read the blogs end up volunteering their time in other ways?

I have been involved in a lot of campaigns and I always find that there is a huge discrepancy between people who say they are willing to work, and those who actually show up. I am wondering if the internet changes the dynamics so that you actually get a higher percentage of people who turn out and work the precincts because they feel more involved?

This is my thinking about political campaigns: the reason why candidates tend to use tv and radio where possible is that they are the fastest and best way to get your message out to a lot of people. They also don't require the consumer of political information to do anything other than continue listening or watching what they were listening or watching when the ad came on.

The drawback is that they are horribly expensive, and there is some evidence that they are losing their effectiveness, especially for downballot races.

That is why if a campaign or candidate could develop a lot of volunteers willing to spend time delivering the message it could be much more effective and much cheaper.

The advantage of the internet is that the communications tools on the internet are so much less expensive than other ways of communicating. If a way to develop volunteers from such a means of communication could be found, then it would be a great asset.

by mrgavel on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 07:20:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bloggers walk precincts (none / 0)

Hard data may be hard to come by... but here's a few data points to contemplate: the Dean campaign garnered about 600,000 people who signed up on their website during the campaign. They can be considered "online" supporters.

There were about 150,000 people who joined Dean's meetup group. These were folks who were willing to at least show up at one local event in their communities to either volunteer, or learn more about the candidate.  

That's a 4:1 ratio, which isn't too shabby.

In most of the country, the meetups were Dean's local campaign organizations. Those volunteers, most of whom found out about the events online, were the folks registering voters, tabling, giving fund-raising parties, and walking the precincts.

Do people online "show up" to walk precincts? They sure do. 15,000 people volunteered to come to Iowa to canvass for Dean.  I personally know a group of folks who left California in January to go to Iowa to be part of that effort. If that's not dedication, I don't know what is.

We all know that Dean didn't win Iowa... but it wasn't for lack of people who were willing to do the legwork and even pay their way to travel long distances and take precious vacation time off to do so.

And the reasons they were inspired to do so is laid out very, very well in the article above. They weren't just volunteers working for a candidate's campaign... they had deep proprietary feelings about a campaign that not only spoke to them, but listened to them. And the campaign not only asked them for money, but asked them for ideas and audaciously asked for investments of energy and time that they were happy to rise to the challenge of.

by Malacandra on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 11:51:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Correction (none / 0)

Oops.

Rereading my post (which I actually had proofed...) I see that I said that 15,000 volunteers came to Iowa for Dean.

That number should be 1,500.

What's an order of magnitude among friends?

Well, I'm self-correcting. Can I still be considered a member of the reality-based community?

by Malacandra on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 12:56:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Correction (none / 0)

LOL, either way your point is impressive. Does anyone know of any seminars, lectures, presentations, etc., put on by people who have successfully used the internet?

My impression of the Dean campaign, which I gave money to in the spring of 2003, was that it didn't know what to do with the volunteers it recruited. That is, it didn't have the professionals to matchup the volunteers with the needs of the campaign. Is this impression correct?

by mrgavel on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 03:24:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bloggers walk precincts-continued response (none / 0)

Another thing, is there some person involved in the blogs or on the internet who knows how to do what I am wondering about? A person who could give us some hard data to measure success by?
by mrgavel on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 07:21:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How's this (none / 0)

Ginny Schrader used blogs to fire people up enough so that Chris Bowers (blogger) travelled up for GOTV. And she raised a pile of money online. And she was intimidating enough due to her online success that the NRCC was forced to spend $10 for every blogosphere dollar she raised.
by Bob Brigham on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 12:54:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How's this (none / 0)

Interesting. What state was she from, and what was she running for? (Am I right to assume she was a candidate?)
by mrgavel on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 03:20:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And there are so many dirt-bags to run against.... (none / 0)

Thanks for the great post, Tim.  All points well made.  Now let's see how many of our Congress[wo]men we can get blogging for 2006.  The time for them to start is now.

Point 4 really is a great one: many, many of our oppenents are dirt-bags, from the front benches to the back.  I think that's why so many more people are active now than a few years ago.

by conchis on Thu Dec 23, 2004 at 05:24:32 PM EST

Field Organization (none / 0)

The secret of Bush's victory was that Rove and the GOP used voter mobilization tools -- including the web -- far more effectively than Kerry and Dems.

Bush didn't need grassroots ATM support, because of their corporate graft. But they used blast emails, church networks, phone banks, robo-calls, precinct organizers, hot button ballot initiatives, and other methods we haven't even imagined. With all that, they still wouldn't have won the election without the Democratic voter suppression in Ohio.

The most important thing the DNC can do is to create REAL field organizations -- that will identify, contact, register, and mobilize every left leaning voter and eligible not-voter in the country. Had we done that, the 120 to 125 million turnout would have materialized, and John Kerry would be working on the transition.

This is a subtext of point number two -- involvement.

The two most important lessons of this election are:

a) have an effective message, and

b) use volunteers effectively.

by ck on Thu Dec 23, 2004 at 05:55:33 PM EST

Who would want to rule the US today? (none / 0)

I don't mean this sarcastically.  

On some level, I think the next few years need to be a reckoning for America.  And, for that reason, it's better that the GOP gets blamed!

Frankly, what would Kerry have done?  His first four years would have been a wash, because he would have wasted it mopping up Bush's mess.

Instead, we get to sit back and let it all be the GOP's problem.  If they can't handle the war, oh well!  It didn't bother them to let Vietnam start the ball rolling on the Dems' decline.

By 2006, we'll have a great litmus test for just where America is.  Because, I struggle to see how Iraq gets better, unless the UN has a change of heart or the US gets a draft.

Also, the economy has limited upside.  It's just structurally not ready for massive expansion.  Nothing like the 1990s will occur again until a whole new industry comes of age (such as computing did).

In the long run, it's probably better that we lost 2004.  It gives us noice to get our game together.

And, we get a nice onesies, twosies, threesies set-up.  In 2005 we get a couple soft races such as NYC mayor.  In 2006 we get the chance to challenge several purple state Republicans.  And then we get another hellbent two-year campaign leading into the 2008 Presidential races.

by jcjcjc on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 12:03:26 AM EST

Re: Who would want to rule the US today? (none / 0)

It would be very tough. If JK is not elected president (and note that this isn't settled yet), we can console ourselves a little with you sentiment.  But real things happen day to day which could happen better if a good person is in the WH.  Even if its tough sledding I'd much rather that Kerry be in there than Bush.
Just another Jesus followin' Green for Constitutional Democracy. :-)
dailyJam.blogspot.com
by JamBoi on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 11:15:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's done; Kerry lost (none / 0)

Could you imagine if the 2004 election were reversed?!

It would turn into a national Waco.  That's just who the far right is.

These are the people that brought us the OK City bombing, and refused to expose several members of the Ohio GOP who were involved.

These are the people who practically parrot the Tim McVeigh sentiment, and gleefully turn around and tell us that Osama is "pure evil".

Please.  With their Christian zeal prostituted for lowest dollar to Halliburton, the far right would go apeshit if Kerry became President.

The best thing Dems can do over the next four years is take advantage of the newly lax gun laws.  

After all, it worked fine for the far right during the 1990s.  Hell, we gave them the White House in exchange for a handful of martyrs.  Not a bad deal.

My view is, if this is what they want (a well-armed, pissed off nation) then that's what we ought to give them.

by jcjcjc on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 01:54:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I've been thinking since the election: Q:how hard (none / 0)

would it be for Kerry to create his own Democratic movement by just mobilizing his supporters into a permanent group along the lines of what Dean has done.  A: Not hard.  And if he were to do it now he'd have an instant contest-the-vote coalition, bingo.  I think that may be too frightening and he may be waiting to let the fingers point really decisively at BushCo before rallying his troops.  My guess about JK is as good as anyones at this point.  Hope he stands up fully and soon!
Just another Jesus followin' Green for Constitutional Democracy. :-)
dailyJam.blogspot.com
by JamBoi on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 02:41:07 PM EST

not sure.... (none / 0)

I don't know if I'd consider myself a blogger quite yet.  I did more volunteering this year by going door to door and making phone calls than ever before.

Sure money helps alot, but typing keys on a PC will not win votes.  grassroots does.

DOING NOT TALKING WILL WIN VOTES.

The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 03:18:24 PM 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.