Disruptive Field Tools

Campaigns have changed a lot over the past four years.  2000 and 2002 saw low-turnout debates over snowmobiles and earth tones, dominated by big television budgets and the so-called 'Gang of 500' set of establishment journalists and pundits.  In 2004, blogs came into politics and disrupted the traditional model of fundraising and media, bringing a new and much more information-intensive path to understanding politics.  You no longer had to be an insider to get polling data, and this created a platform for activist innovation.   The closed loop of fundraising and insider connections to journalists was short-circuited by this new model of distributing message, and earlier internet political organizing models like Moveon were able to fully flower into independent GOTV and media organs.  In 2006, youtube disrupted the traditional video market, and layered itself onto blogs and mature tools like Actblue to change the way that message was distributed, and funded.  

And yet, there has always been a distance between field/GOTV and the media/polling/fundraising worlds.  The big question - can the internet deliver votes - has never been answered.  I still hear the argument put out by people like David Plouffe, who is running the media side for Obama's campaign.

"Don't get me wrong," said David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager and Rospars's boss, "the Internet is a powerful organizing and fundraising tool, and it's getting more and more important every day, but it's still not the persuasion and message tool that TV is."

This is a pretty dumb attitude, it's kind of like saying 'well advertising on comedy shows is gold, but drama isn't where the voters are.'  If the people are on the internet and are also watching TV, you have to be in both places.  As you can see, the dismissive attitude towards the internet and the innovative possibilities it offers is still around, large and in charge, even on what is supposedly the most internet-savvy campaign.  I think by the end of this cycle, that will have changed.  The notion of 'going door to door' on the internet, through offering video clips to targeted voters over MySpace, will be here.  Social networks will be combined with voter files, which have seen dramatic improvements since 2000.  And fundraising, field, and media will have converged.  Candidates will be putting out youtube clips early to raise money, identify supporters, and win primaries.  All of this has been tested already, and it works.

Rock the Vote, in 2004, registered 1.2 million voters with a simple online voter registration download tool.  That's more than twice as much as they had ever registered in any other cycle, including the youth-spike year of 1992.  And the online voter registration tool wasn't particularly flexible.  What's happening this cycle could be ground-breaking, in that Rock the Vote is building a voter registration engine with an API anyone can innovate on top of.  Groups and individuals will be able to capture the number of people they register, the data of the people they register, and the contact information of those they register.  This means that, unlike with a standard voter registration download form, the person who asked you to register, presumably someone you trust, will be reminding you to vote.  That's a big deal.  They will also be able to get credit for registering you to vote, since the voter engine will let people see how many people have registered through a page.  It'll be kind of like Actblue, for voter registration.

I've been combing around voter registration statistics, and the number of 18-29 year old voters who voted in 2004 versus 2000 jumped from 15.8 million to 20.1 million, an increase of 4.3 million.  With Facebook, MySpace, and Youtube turning intensely political, it's pretty clear that voter registration, and specifically, being able to count voter registration and compete over it, will be a killer ap.  Finally, field will be at least in some part measurable and put online.  Facebook alone has 22-24 million members, and is growing at 150,000 members a day.  MySpace is over 100 million.  And though it's unclear how many of these user accounts are citizens and how seriously they take participation in these public spaces, the fact that there are these public spaces, and that they are gargantuan, is a game-changer.  My guess is that the opinion leaders in these communities are traditional pundits and stars, but it doesn't have to be this way, and bands and bloggers are in the mix as well.

If Rock the Vote experiences the type of growth of regular Web 2.0 startups like Flickr, Facebook, MySpace, Youtube, etc, there's no reason that 18-29 year old voting block can't expand its share of the electorate by 3 or 4 points.  This would swing Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, Iowa, and Ohio.  And it would put North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, and Arkansas into the swing category, while pulling New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania out of swing state territory.

In primaries, the effect of more youth voters would be much more significant, especially if the cost of communicating with these voters drops below the cost of communicating with other demographic blocks.  And we're not even talking about the self-organizing tendencies this generation is already displaying, with its competency in using the grouping tools of the internet.  All in all, it's pretty neat to live through a historical realignment of the political system.  It started in 1998 with Moveon, and by 2008, the new rules of politics will be in place.



Display:


Re: Disruptive Field Tools (none / 0)

Good points. Could you clarify what your points had to do with the Plouffe sentence you quoted? He seemed to be making a distinction between organizing/fundraising tools (said the internet was powerful there) and persuasion/message tools (said internet strong but TV still is stronger). Voter registration and other field stuff is not something Plouffe seemed to have expressed a "pretty dumb attitude" toward. But your title is about field. Not sure I would characterize his attitude as dismissive after reading the entire article. TV was never a field tool, really. Do you think that TV has been eclipsed as a message and persuasion tool? It has been for persuading me. But I am not sure what metric I would use to argue that TV is more or less powerful for message/persuasion overall. My guess is that the YouTube moments campaigns crave are when their clips get onto TV news programs. The free media effect there gets more eyeballs and value than the original clip would have on YouTube. The Pew study, while showing that more and more Americans get electoral info from the web, also shows that the majority still rely on traditional mass media. But when it comes to motivated volunteers and funders, the internet numbers Pew shows are probably a larger slice of the target than are basic persuasion targets.
Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Sat May 26, 2007 at 06:56:15 PM EST

Re: Disruptive Field Tools (3.00 / 1)

Plouffe is arguing for silos.  The internet is thing A, TV is thing B, thing B is more powerful than thing A.

It's more of a synthesis, where message tools and GOTV tools are deployed together.  For instance, there's some amazing cable targeting that can work really well with GOTV operations and MySpace/Facebook organizing.


by Matt Stoller on Sat May 26, 2007 at 08:34:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disruptive Field Tools (none / 0)

Plouffe is exactly right, certainly about the net's ineffectiveness as a persuasion tool.  All you have to do is read this site and you'll see it's a bunch of highly informed individuals who have already made up their minds arguing with each other.  There's no "persuasion" going on.  This diary a case in point.  He never said it can't deliver votes, in fact he said it is a "powerful organizing and fundraising tool".  That's hardly being "dismissive".  If anyone is being dismissive, it is you, intentionally twisting his words to reach a predetermined conclusion based on a predetermined opinion of Obama and Plouffe.  And not very persuasive.


by dougdilg on Sat May 26, 2007 at 07:04:51 PM EST

Re: Disruptive Field Tools (none / 0)

The best way to get another 3-4 percentage points of 18-29 year-olds would be to nominate a candidate who especially popular among younger voters - any suggestions?


by Sam I Am on Sat May 26, 2007 at 07:18:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disruptive Field Tools (none / 0)

And have the candidate(s) address issues of interest to the 18-29 folks, like (presumably) lack of upward mobility, lack of good jobs, debt--both personal and governmental, global warming and effects of climate change in the next 20-50 years, you tell me.  

If more young people register and vote, candidates will address their issues more.  It's a virtuous circle.  


by Mimikatz on Sat May 26, 2007 at 08:19:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disruptive Field Tools (none / 0)

Both Clinton and Obama have drawing power among young people, though Obama's base is definitely younger.


by Matt Stoller on Sat May 26, 2007 at 08:35:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disruptive Field Tools (none / 0)

Sadly, neither of those candidates give a damn about young people who are stuck in dead-end jobs in a dead-end economy.

No money to give you see....


by Pericles on Sun May 27, 2007 at 09:54:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disruptive Field Tools (none / 0)

Because this is a website explicitly aimed at highly partisan Democratic electoral obsessives.

It's not for creating new Democratic voters, at least not deliberately. There are other sources for that.

Besides, even if it's not a great persuasive tool (lack of ability to see body language is a great hindrance, for example), it is a great organisational tool permitting campaigns to utilise their supporters to persuade others.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Sat May 26, 2007 at 08:48:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disruptive Field Tools (none / 0)

while the internet (esp. forums like this) may be a place where people are dogmatic and "unpersuadable" I think this underestimates the internet as a tool to persuade people to use diff. tactics to or focus on diff things. Take the new movement urging dems to re-register and vote for Ron Paul in the republican primary (letsgetpaul.blogspot). I've been "persuaded" to consider using this strategy, and it's not just that it seems like another tactic to get a dem elected. I'd like to see someone who calls bs (like paul) have a legitimate voice on the national stage to call out bs on both the dem. and rep. sides, and shake up a very problematic system.


by chodester on Sun May 27, 2007 at 07:13:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Voter Registration vs. Delivering Votes (3.00 / 0)

But Field is so much more than voter registration. In fact, voter registration isn't even part of the field program in most campaigns. Campaigns exist for the sole purpose of delivering the votes for a win.

Searching for new voters, identifying them, getting them registered, and then getting them to vote is a process that takes too much time and money, time and money which can be spent on persuading registered voters who vote regularly to vote for you.

Votes are still cast in the physical world. A voter needs to go to the polls or send in an early ballot. Until that system changes, GOTV will still require face-to-face (or over the phone) contact. I honestly don't think the major social networks can promote that.

I do, however, believe that activism networks (like DFA-Link, MyBarackObama, OneCorps, et. al.) can be an effective "disruptive field tools", because they're built with offline action in mind.


Leftmost Bit
by Luigi Montanez on Sat May 26, 2007 at 07:10:51 PM EST

Re: Voter Registration vs. Delivering Votes (none / 0)

But Field is so much more than voter registration. In fact, voter registration isn't even part of the field program in most campaigns. Campaigns exist for the sole purpose of delivering the votes for a win.

Searching for new voters, identifying them, getting them registered, and then getting them to vote is a process that takes too much time and money, time and money which can be spent on persuading registered voters who vote regularly to vote for you.

The point I'm making is that these tools can dramatically reduce the cost of voter registration and contact, just as blogs and email has changed the cost of communicating with your activists.  Internet tools don't replace the other tools, they supplement them and often in supplementing them they change the political process in subtle and populist ways.


by Matt Stoller on Sat May 26, 2007 at 08:37:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter Registration vs. Delivering Votes (none / 0)

One thing to add is that this breaks down the wall between 'field' and 'online' activities.  If you can register voters online, track and communicate with them online, and contact them to GOTV online, then you're doing field operations online in a very nontrivial and fully integrated manner.

This is cool stuff indeed.


by RT on Sat May 26, 2007 at 10:05:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter Registration vs. Delivering Votes (3.00 / 4)

Don't usually blog whore like this, but I recently put up a post about the latest academic research relevant to field mobilization efficacy.

Because of what I was doing, I didn't report this there, but Donald Green of Yale who has been doing this research for years, was willing to speculate that "friend to friend" internet contacts would probably be as good as, or even better than, face to face door knocking contacts in turning out voters. So he's endorsing these tools, when we master them with enough sophistication to move through real "friend" networks. Onward!


Can It Happen Here?
by janinsanfran on Sat May 26, 2007 at 11:06:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter Registration vs. Delivering Votes (none / 0)

Great post!


by Matt Stoller on Sun May 27, 2007 at 09:50:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter Registration vs. Delivering Votes (none / 0)

Thanks to Matt for highlighting this comment and thanks for blog whoring- I just bought the Green and Gerber book on amazon.  Is this book- "Get Out The Vote" by Green and Gerber- the best on what field operation tactics work and don't work?


Our Moment Is Now
by mboehm on Sun May 27, 2007 at 02:21:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter Registration vs. Delivering Votes (none / 0)

You should also make a habit of checking out Young Voter Strategies on a monthly basis or signing up for their newsletter.

In a bit of blog whoring myself, I'll also recommend my own blog (link in my sig) as a place to go and talk about best practices for reaching young voters.


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Sun May 27, 2007 at 02:53:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter Registration vs. Delivering Votes (none / 0)

Sorry, here's the link:

http://www.youngvoterstrategies.org


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Sun May 27, 2007 at 02:53:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter Registration vs. Delivering Votes (none / 0)

The interesting thing about VR is that it is cheaper than other field work in terms of the cost of voters acquired. Based on a formula done by some VR funders  created by looking at the results of the 2004 efforts, it costs about $26.60 per voter acquired doing VR. It costs about $50 per voter acquired for GOTV work.

Note that I'm talking about new voters - that is to say people who would not have voted without the program. If you think your campaign will win if you can bring in new voters, rather than trying to change the minds of frequent voters, then this is important news for you.

Also, there is no way you can put any trust into that 1.2 million VR number from Rock the Vote. That's the number of VR applications that were downloaded from their site. There was no follow-up with the potential registrant and there is no way they verified who submitted their application and who actually got on the rolls. The 200K number from their field programs is much more reliable.

I'm not saying don't use the internet to register people. I'm saying we haven't figured out how to do it in a verifiable way yet and without the verificiation we don't actually know how successful the effort is.


by nathanhj on Sun May 27, 2007 at 12:33:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter Registration vs. Delivering Votes (none / 0)

Also, there is no way you can put any trust into that 1.2 million VR number from Rock the Vote. That's the number of VR applications that were downloaded from their site. There was no follow-up with the potential registrant and there is no way they verified who submitted their application and who actually got on the rolls. The 200K number from their field programs is much more reliable.

That's not quite right.  They did match downloads to the voter file.


by Matt Stoller on Sun May 27, 2007 at 02:44:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter Registration vs. Delivering Votes (none / 0)

Ah. Cool.

How many actually showed up on the rolls?


by nathanhj on Sun May 27, 2007 at 06:33:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter Registration vs. Delivering Votes (3.00 / 1)

Adam here from Working Assets.  We co-developed Rock the Vote's online voter registration tool in 2004, and are the ones building the API and widget RTV will be using in the very near future.  (The back story is here.)

As funders and participants in the field of non-partisan civic engagement, we're of course very interested in evaluating how effective online voter registration is.  So we ran an in-depth analysis of the online voter registration data from 2004, matching it to the voter files to find out exactly who showed up on the rolls.

What we found was very encouraging.  For those who completed an application with RTV's tool, 68.0% ended up on the rolls.  This is remarkable, considering that the only thing we know for online registrants is that they finished the process online--but after that, they still have to print the form, sign it, stamp it, put it in the mail, and have their state or local registrars process the application without mishap.

Additionally, we found that of the applicants who got registered, 79.7% voted.  That means that of the 1.2 million completed applications online, 54.4% or over 652,000 voters actually turned out on Election Day.  Quite frankly, that's huge, and extremely cost effective.

We're hoping for even bigger advances in 2007 and 2008.  That's why we're opening up our voter registration process -- both through the widget and open API -- to let other innovators in this field make online voter registration work in even better ways.


by aaklaus on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:04:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter Registration vs. Delivering Votes (none / 0)

That's very good news. Thanks for the very thorough accounting of this methodology.


Can It Happen Here?
by janinsanfran on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 07:51:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Balance (none / 0)

I believe there is a big difference between
high-tech and high-touch. Politics is all about relationships and blogs do not replace the approach in person. There has to be a balance.
by joliepoint on Sat May 26, 2007 at 07:31:03 PM EST

Re: Balance (none / 0)

Facebook is successful because people are doing high touch trusted communication online with each other.  I'm not talking about blogs, but about all social media.


by Matt Stoller on Sat May 26, 2007 at 08:38:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Balance (none / 0)

Indeed.  I'm a fiftysomething guy who hasn't ventured any further than message boards and LiveJournal.  But I know people online that I've never met IRL, but if I knew they were traveling my way, I wouldn't hesitate to invite them to stay under my roof.  

You can get high-touch through high-tech.  And I'm sure it's much more true for people half my age, who've grown up in this environment.


by RT on Sat May 26, 2007 at 10:11:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disruptive Field Tools (none / 0)

I think Plouffe was exactly right, look at the number of people who will see a spot if you put it on CNN versus the number who will see an ad if you place it on YouTube.  You get a lot more bang for your buck on YouTube.

I'm not saying that the internet isn't an amazing tool for field operations and neither is the campaign.  Given that they use their website to link directly to govote.org and their student group was built off of a facebook group I have no doubt they understand the power of the internet.  You are spinning his quote so far from its original meaning it is disgusting.


by Obama08 on Sat May 26, 2007 at 07:40:55 PM EST

Re: Disruptive Field Tools (none / 0)

And wqe all know from Macaca and other episodes that the internet CAN persuade people not to vote for one person, the first step in persuading them to vote for the other one.


by Mimikatz on Sat May 26, 2007 at 08:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disruptive Field Tools (none / 0)

I'd say the MSMs reporting on the Macaca episode made the difference in that case.  But it's the internets that were able to elevate it to a level that the MSM couldn't ignore.

Candidate net messaging operations are finally learning to gin up the level of Web frenzy that might lead to a nightly nuuz crossover story.

The Obama camp knows full well that the dueling Madison Avenue TV campaigns scheduled for this fall are the real Democratic primary race. The internets are still inside baseball for most voters.


by jeffuppy on Sun May 27, 2007 at 02:36:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disruptive Field Tools (none / 0)

"Don't get me wrong the Internet is a powerful organizing and fundraising tool, and it's getting more and more important every day, but it's still not the persuasion and message tool that TV is."

So David Plouffe spends two-thirds of his statement prefacing his remarks with strengths of the internet before making a factual statement about the size of TV audiences and still gets slammed for having a 'dumb attitude'.

Six times as many people view 'Judge Joe Brown' every day as view Daily Kos. Ten times as many view Dr. Phil, 15x as many view Oprah each day as view Daily Kos. Plouffe didn't discount the reach of new online media or the benefits of interactive communcation - he's just being realistic.


"Nothing seems to embarrass the political class today." - Bill Moyers
by joejoejoe on Sat May 26, 2007 at 08:23:59 PM EST

Is Plouffe factually wrong? (none / 0)

Is what Plouffe said actually wrong? No? Then how can you call it stupid?


by Korha on Sat May 26, 2007 at 08:29:51 PM EST

Re: Is Plouffe factually wrong? (none / 0)

Sorry, I shouldn't have used such a charged term.  I think Plouffe isn't a stupid man, but he's paid to boost TV advertising.


by Matt Stoller on Sat May 26, 2007 at 09:02:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Plouffe factually wrong? (none / 0)

Paid by whom?  


by dougdilg on Sat May 26, 2007 at 09:10:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this is why Obama probably won't get my vote (none / 0)

I know a number of people on his team who 'get it' but the top of his team are worthless (i.e. Duckworth, Tammy).


by Bob Brigham on Sat May 26, 2007 at 09:00:54 PM EST

How about a little honesty? (none / 0)

Do you really expect anyone to believe you won't vote for a candidate for President because someone on his staff thinks TV is a more powerful persuasion and messaging tool than the internet?  In truth, the power of the internet is being diluted daily by people under anonymous handles coming on a posting dishonest nonsense.  It cheapens the medium.  It's posts like yours that lessens the impact of the blogosphere.  There is zero integrity.


by dougdilg on Sat May 26, 2007 at 09:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is why Obama probably won't get my vote (none / 0)

blogswarm -- If I remember right, you were pretty involved in helping the McNerney people, so I'm assuming you know the various things people did there.

The netroots made a big difference.  But we shouldn't overstate our case.  Blogs and groups like MoveOn did not do that much to get the word out or to improve Jerry's name recognition within the 11th district.  It was certainly more than raising money, and it did have an effect on those things.  But the effect was indirect: the blogs got volunteers, and the volunteers called over on-line phone banks, and they showed up and helped canvass districts.  It also helped volunteers within the district to find the campaign and help too.  It's worth stressing that, since by the time the election rolled around, there was a very large local effort run from campaign offices or groups tied to the campaign in Dublin, Stockton and even Tracy, where Pombo is from.

But still, ads on broacast TV, cable and over radio had a large role.  It was not possible to compete with Pombo over the air, but there did need to be a presence.

I don't think the comment from the Obama campaign is inconstent with that.


by Rob Thorne on Sat May 26, 2007 at 10:56:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disruptive Field Tools (none / 0)

I think another thing to note in this conversation about the utilization of the internet is that the Obama for America campaign is using the internet to try and get people to the early caucus and primary states.

Obama for America released one of the first new applications for Facebook which is currently in the Top 20 of the new applications.  It allows users to find their friends who are residents for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada and try to persuade them.  For a fuller discussion of the new Facebook applications check out Mike Connery's diary, "Obama Rocks the New FaceBook, and Doesn't Want Your Money."

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/26/1726 55/023


by Obama08 on Sat May 26, 2007 at 09:20:17 PM EST

But what will you do on February 5? (none / 0)

My concern for Obama (and Edwards as well) is not only with the early states of New Hampshire and Iowa, but the huge block of states that will hit on February 5, 2008.  Facebook is not going to cut it for that.

For a campaign to do well on February 5th, they are going to need local organizations ready to go months before that.  Tools are needed to get these local organizations set up, and to get a "meat roots" presence.  You're going to need to create relationships with local press, local TV and radio stations.  You're going to need to get to churches, synagogues, and mosques.  And you're going to need get groups built up around interests  (environment, arts, seniors, students, unions...) well before the primary season starts.

We developed some very good tools for these sorts of things for the Dean, Clark and Kerry campaigns back in 2004.  The campaigns, which are scared of local groups they don't control, aren't encouraging these sorts of things.  Don't wait for the campaigns.  Take things in your own hands and start working on these tools.  Now.

Also: if you have never done a training in retail politics -- Democracy For American and the Wellstone people have good ones, with price breaks for students -- go and get one this summer.  Artists need creativity, but they need a bit of technique as well.


by Rob Thorne on Sat May 26, 2007 at 11:07:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But what will you do on February 5? (none / 0)

If you go onto my.barackobama.com you will find over 5,000 groups that have been organized by individuals at the grassroots level.  I know of three in my area who meet regularly and are creating a visible presence in my area.  These groups do not have any contact with the official campaign except irregularly when the candidate is somewhere in the region and they drive to volunteer.

I agree that it is important to get a real presence in the February 5th states.  I think it is important in all the primary states through early March in case we have a drawn out primary.  Right now Obama is developing a real presence across the country and it isn't costing his campaign a dime.


by Obama08 on Sun May 27, 2007 at 10:07:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disruptive Field Tools (3.00 / 1)

That's wild exaggeration in terms of impact on individual states. It's not as if 18-29 year olds are a 90-10 demographic. It's closer to 60-40 and that was in a wave election during a second term midterm. Realistically you need to project lower than that in a presidential year.

Even if you get something like 57-43 and improve the percentage among that block by 3-4% of the electorate, it still doesn't come close to moving states like Arizona, North Carolina, Missouri or Arkansas. Those are still base conservative states with a much greater percentage of self-identified conservatives than the states we typically win.

And I still have no idea how Arizona gets lumped in with states like New Mexico, Iowa and Ohio, and not in the block with North Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri, etc. I've seen that frequently lately and it makes zero sense. Arizona has a very low percentage of blacks. The most reliable voters are middle aged whites who trend very conservative. Even last year in a wave situation I remember looking at the exit polls and it wasn't promising, too many self-identified conservatives and high party ID allegiance to Republicans. You need to be in the 21% liberal, 32% conservative range to be a true swing state and Arizona doesn't threaten those numbers right now.


by Gary Kilbride on Sat May 26, 2007 at 10:02:11 PM EST

Missouri (none / 0)

As always, I preface these stories with: "the plural of anecdote is not data".

At the end of Election Day 2004 an aquaintance who worked the precinct where a significant number of our university students voted told me that she was very proud of them because they had turned out in huge numbers. Kerry lost that precinct "big time".

The day after Election Day I was working with a student - he was a bit disoriented, so I asked him what was up. He told me that he had friends over to watch election results the night before - no one would leave until about three in the morning, so he couldn't get to sleep earlier. He added that of the twenty or so students at his apartment only four (including him) had voted for Kerry. The rest had voted for dubya. This in a group of students in an academic major which is usually (and notoriously) supposed to have more liberals. I was very surprised. In retrospect I wish I had been there so I could have handed out DD-4s.

The 2004 turnout in the presidential vote for my county was 20,236 of approximately 25,000 voters. dubya got 60.6% of the vote, Kerry got 38.5%.

GOTV cannot be indiscriminate. The 18-24 year old vote should not be targetted in certain places - especially absent other demographic data for more refined targetting.  


543,895 votes
by Michael Bersin on Sun May 27, 2007 at 06:04:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I write field tools (none / 0)

I can't speak so specifically to the youth vote.  I live in an area where the most under mobilized populating is Latinos, and I tend to look most closely at tools that reach that population well.

I do think htat Matt is defining "field tools" too narrowly.  A lot of what needs to get done, particularly at the congressional, state, and local levels are tools that have existed for years at very high cost, using data controlled by very high paid consultants. Tools that help a campaign identify who their supporters are using neighbors-meeting-neighbors (foot canvasses, in other words), and reaching voters by phone via various kinds of phone banking.  MoveOn and others have come up with some very good tools for some of this stuff, where you can get volunteers from outside of a district and call voters.  With better tools for gathering information about voters' preferences ("voter ID", to use the field organizer's term), and better tools for integrating what we know about voters from other sources, we could do a lot to improve our results in many elections.

This is not as hip as tools like Flicker or Facebook, but I think it can be a lot more effective, especially on a local level.

I am a software engineer and open source developer that is doing software for these sorts of things; my largest effort is something called CiviVoter, which makes it a lot easier to use a voter file to "cover" a district.  There are other efforts out there (Advokit is one of the older ones).  And all of these efforts are important and are doing good things in different places.

The problem is that we need to put more resources into them.  Political candidates generally cannot commit "infrastructure" money.  And I have found that the Democratic Party on the state and federal level is too tied up with the old line consultants to be very interested in these kinds of projects. Most of support for CiviVoter, ironically enough, has been Canadian, with the Green Party of Canada the biggest supporter.

Frankly, we need netroots money for these kinds of projects, and I'm not sure how best to get the idea across to people.  I'm hoping this comment helps.


by Rob Thorne on Sat May 26, 2007 at 10:19:01 PM EST

Re: I write field tools (3.00 / 1)

With better tools for gathering information about voters' preferences ("voter ID", to use the field organizer's term), and better tools for integrating what we know about voters from other sources, we could do a lot to improve our results in many elections.

This is not as hip as tools like Flicker or Facebook, but I think it can be a lot more effective, especially on a local level.

These are not mutually exclusive, and actually FaceBook is a better tool than anything offered by "traditional" political work for IDing potential voters under 30.

Check this out: How to Build a Voter File with FaceBook


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Sat May 26, 2007 at 10:31:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I write field tools (none / 0)

Mike,

Using Facebook like that is a good idea, but it doesn't really scale very well.  It's a good way to find voters on your campus for a very high profile election like a presidential election, but most elections aren't really like that.  Finding people who will go as far as to say what they're interested is important, but it's a very small population compared with what it takes to win an election.

Ask yourself this: if someone does not sign up for Facebook, how do you find that person?

That's the problem you have to solve with a field effort.  Typically, a field effort will try to find a population of voters to reach, and then go about systematically trying to reach them.  Traditional tools are things like mailers, or phone calls people make from voter lists, say from union halls if you're a Democrat, or something better funded (or maybe even for hire) if you're a Republican.

You need to do the same things for initiative campaigns, which are very important in places like California, and can have a lot of impact on people.  Think of Proposition 187, which had a very negative effect on the rights of Latinos in California back in the 1990s.

I did work for the Jerry McNerney For Congress campaign, as did thousands of others.  The voter file for that single district has hundreds of thousands of voters, and scores of organizations were involved in reaching them.  That's a big problem, and it's a very hard problem.  And there are tools that did a lot for winning that election for Jerry.  Some were better than others.  And we'll need better ones to get him re-elected in 2008.

That's the problem you need to solve with field, and with field tools.  If you're job is to get people on a campus, you can do it as you describe. But it's a much bigger problem than that, and other kinds of voter populations needs approaches as well.


by Rob Thorne on Sat May 26, 2007 at 10:47:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I write field tools (none / 0)

Yes and no.  You seem to be arguing from the point of view that my post implied FaceBook is the panacea of youth organizing, a new silver bullet that will strike out enemies dead with spot-on registration of every youth out there.  

I'm not.  

It's another tool to add to the toolbox that makes youth outreach - particularly students, but not exclusively - that much easier.  Other organizations must be involved, other outreach must be done.  This is just a better way to reach a certain segment of young voters.  Because chances are, that voter file you had, was worthless in terms of reaching folks under 25.

FaceBook lets you search by a variety of networks.  Colleges and Universities are one. So if you have a college or university in your district, you can find those people, whether they live on or off campus, and you can target liberals, moderates, and apathetics and avoid conservatives.

If you live in Backass Town, Colorado, chances are FaceBook also has a network for your town or your county.  So you can search that and match it with the phone book to find the young people.

At that point, you couple it with really smart canvassing tactics that are effective with younger audiences.  Outreach at concerts, barbershops, malls, parks, etc.  The Oregon Bus Project's Building Blocks, Building Votes and Trick or Vote programs are gold standards in that arena.  If you live in a county that is very spread out, FaceBook becomes an online organizing tool not for ALL young voters, but for your organizers.

W/r/t scale, it sounds to me like you are conflating "scale" with a broadcast strategy.  The whole point and power of FaceBook is that it is decentralized and MAD cheap.  Doing this stuff costs next to nothing.  So rather than have some big central coordinating committee, you have 20, 30, 40 local organizers each responsible for a small area of the state.

Finally, this DOES work in local elections, and targeting young voters on campus does win elections.  Minnesota DFL used the FaceBook voter model to much success in 2006.  Tester and Webb both credit their victories to youth turnout and outreach.  The real example though is Joe Courtney (D-CT).  Courtney did tarted youth outreach at the University of Connecticut.  The turnout went up 600% in UCT, and Courtney squeaked in after a recount by 83 votes.

Young Voter Strategies will be releasing a study next month outlining examples like these in detail.


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Sun May 27, 2007 at 07:48:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I write field tools (none / 0)

A lot of what you're writing about the Obama campaign is news to me, and it sounds good.  I totally agree that the Facebook related strategies is an excellent addition to the portfolio of techniques candidates will need for 2008.

You do misunderstand scaling issues when you write this:

W/r/t scale, it sounds to me like you are conflating "scale" with a broadcast strategy.  The whole point and power of FaceBook is that it is decentralized and MAD cheap.  Doing this stuff costs next to nothing.  So rather than have some big central coordinating committee, you have 20, 30, 40 local organizers each responsible for a small area of the state.

Finally, this DOES work in local elections, and targeting young voters on campus does win elections.  Minnesota DFL used the FaceBook voter model to much success in 2006.  Tester and Webb both credit their victories to youth turnout and outreach.  The real example though is Joe Courtney (D-CT).  Courtney did tarted youth outreach at the University of Connecticut.  The turnout went up 600% in UCT, and Courtney squeaked in after a recount by 83 votes.


What you are describing here hits the people who can be reached via Facebook, which is not most people.  Your technique is easy replicable, which is a great virtue.  But it's a replicable narrowcasting technique.  This is what I mean when I say your technique does not scale.  You can do GOTV, Voter ID and other field activities doing the things you suggest.  But in the races you named,  most of the votes did not come via any web based technique, much less via Facebook.

There's a comment upthread by janinsanfran that's worth reading in full.  From her blog:


The gold standard remains the "at the door" personal canvass. Researchers provided a lot of useful information about how to raise the quality of these contacts. My takeaway from their findings follows (the academics are not responsible for every nuance I'm giving this.)

   * At the very least, the canvasser needs to be trained to carry on an actual conversation with the voter. This needn't be deep; the researchers were unclear whether messages that were partisan were more effective than messages emphasizing the duty of citizenship. But the canvasser needs to be able to solicit a back and forth interaction with the target voter.

   * Canvassers associated with a known and respected community group were relatively more effective than unconnected volunteers. Campaigns need those community groups in order to be heard by unlikely voters.

   * Canvassers of the same ethnicity and/or language group are more effective with voters with the same demographics. This is intuitively obvious, but it is nice to have research begin to confirm it.

   * Similarly, but not quite so obviously, the closer the canvasser lives to the voter, the higher the likelihood of turning the voter out. Researchers were surprised by how strong the effect was. A canvasser from the same precinct was measurably more successful than one from a few streets further away. For the researchers, the finding has prompted a desire to repeat and replicate the experiment because the finding seems so strong. For the campaign manager, this argues for using "precinct captains" or even "block captains" as much as possible to do the canvassing.


She goes on to make the point that phone banking, to the extent that it has the same personal touch, has also been found to be effective.

At some point, you have to work out from a voter file.  There's no substitute for it, and techniques like your Facebook page cannot do it.  On the other hand, especially compared to the best stuff the GOP can throw at us, Democrats do not use foot canvassing or phone banks as effectively s they could with better tools.

There's good research on this stuff, as janinsanfran points out.  It's a pity not to put the research to use.


by Rob Thorne on Sun May 27, 2007 at 04:14:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I write field tools (none / 0)

Rob,

I'm not arguing against canvassing or even phone banking.  I'm arguing that your canvassing can be more effective among younger people (yes, a certain segment who use FaceBook, but that is also a rapidly growing segment - 100,000 new people per day).

You say:

At some point, you have to work out from a voter file.  There's no substitute for it, and techniques like your Facebook page cannot do it.  On the other hand, especially compared to the best stuff the GOP can throw at us, Democrats do not use foot canvassing or phone banks as effectively s they could with better tools.

What I'm saying is that voter files that you get from the state party or board of elections are worthless in targeting young voters.  So you've got to build one as best you can using this FaceBook technique IN ADDITION to face to face, peer to peer outreach like JaninSanFran pointed out, and which I too suggested when I mentioned the Oregon Bus Project's Building Blocks, Building Votes and Trick or Vote programs, as well as basic  outreach in cultural communities - concerts, public parks, coffee shops, barber shops, etc.

The races I mentioned all targeted young voters to great success.  All of those candidates credit youth turnout for their win. When YVS releases their report, we'll see what tactics were used to make that turnout happen.  I'm sure canvassing and peer to peer outreach at cultural communities will top that list.

I'm suggesting that with this tactic, we can make those strategies that are already successful even more efficient and effective.  Yes, only for those who are on FaceBook.  It's not a panacea or silver bullet, but it's a great new tool.


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Mon May 28, 2007 at 08:41:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I write field tools (3.00 / 1)

That's a good method Mike, but how do you contact those self-identified liberals in a GOTV effort? Facebook limits you to sending one hundred messages a day last I checked. If you harvest their campus emails and send a huge mailing, you'll be immediately flagged as a spammer by the campus IT department. Either way, messages (via Facebook or email) are an asynchronous form of communication, much like leaving a message while phone banking or leaving a piece of lit on someone's door. They're easy to ignore and easy to throw away.

Successful GOTV requires live, synchronous conversation. The only method I can think of is harvesting IM screen names and using those. Most people don't display screen names on Facebook profiles, so you'll need to send a Facebook message (or email) to open a dialogue, and then hope for a response, and then ask for a screen name.

There are three resources in a campaign: time, money, and volunteers. You can always raise more money, and you can always get more volunteers. But you can't get more time. Is the Facebook method of voter ID really worth the time? I ask not to be glib, but because I feel the limitations of the large social networks are too often glossed over when they're discussed in relation to real-world political organizing.


Leftmost Bit
by Luigi Montanez on Sun May 27, 2007 at 01:22:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I write field tools (none / 0)

Actually, the message limit is 1000, but that's the whole point of matching your FaceBook data with the college registry/address book data.  That information is public and you can either get an electronic copy for the school website or an administrative office or you can go through by hand, depending on the size of you school.

The result of mixing the two is a spot-on voter file for your campus that you then use for ground efforts.

I'm not arguing against canvassing.  You're preaching to the choir here w/r/t the advantages of peer to peer outreach.  

But this helps you target.  It's a couple day's worth of work to make all your canvassing and youth outreach that much more efficient later on.

It's not a zero sum game; not an either/or choice.  It's another tool to add to the toolbox that makes youth outreach that much easier.


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Sun May 27, 2007 at 07:35:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disruptive Field Tools (3.00 / 1)

Field is all a numbers game.  With limited resources, a campaign has to target the people who are most likely to vote.  And unfortunately, the 18-29 demographic are the least likely to vote.

You shouldn't characterize Plouffe's ideas as 'dumb' because he doesn't BELIEVE what you see as the potential for the internet as a persuasion and mobilizing force.  I am highly skeptical that the number of members on Facebook or Flickr will translate into higher turnout in the 18-29 demographic.  From a totally hardened, cynical but realistic perspective, it is absolutely foolish for a campaign to count on first time voters to carry them over the hump in an election.

The value I see in these organizing tools being built is that as the people using them get older, the more likely campaigns & political groups will tap into them.  A lot of people on the Dean campaign got burned by the 'new voters' pitch.  It seems premature to ratchet it up again, only to see another disappointing turnout in the youth vote in '08.  I hope I'm wrong.


by stuckinsf on Sat May 26, 2007 at 11:22:31 PM EST

Re: Disruptive Field Tools (none / 0)

Oh please, Matt.  don't let your bruised ego get to you.  The internet has not reached it's full force yet.  the infancy is what it is in as far as politics goes and you are at the beginning to watch what it becomes.
And, truthfully, it is not as powerful as the tv news yet.
We are getting mostly the base and the message is not getting to the mainstream voter.  this is evident by Hillary's numbers.  People are not getting informed on the candidates and where they stand and the tv is only cheerleading for Hillary so they are getting influenced towards her right now.  the average voter is still not turned on to the blogs and internet for indepth and truthful info and so they believe that Hillary is inevitable so why bother getting to know the other candidates or what they are about.
If you were more powerful, Edwards and obama's polls would be higher and Hillary in the toilet.
You are getting there, being somewhat heard, but, you have not gotten as powerful as tv yet.
Quit pouting over hurt feelings and keep getting the message out and new readers here.
by vwcat on Sat May 26, 2007 at 11:53:29 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.