I think Dan's right, re:targeting. Ultimately, you're going to go everywhere. On GCI's 2004 DNC canvass, we went everywhere in San Diego and damn near everywhere in Orange County, so I'm sure that a canvass in a smaller city would go everywhere. You have to rotate rich turf and poor turf.
I also have to disagree with the notion that Democratic performance correlates with fundraising potential. Give me the richest neighborhood in town, any day, and I'll get a big-ass check from the only Democrat I meet (e.g., try raising more money in Chula Vista than in freakin' La Jolla). The problem, of course, is that that person is probably already a donor, so I'm not really helping anyone out...
Actually, Stuart, if they're hiring a vendor to help set up GOTV (i.e., not to fundraise) there is a pretty high likelihood they are using Grrassroots Solutions, and not GCI. Grassroots Solutions is a totally unrelated and altogether reputable company (unless there's something I don't know). I've never worked for them personally, but I almost did one time, and they sure seemed to understand the value of paying people adequately and being straight with them. They also have a reputation for doing some pretty good work.
I'll do you one more, Tommy. Meeting the team in San Diego was one of the brightspots of my life. But the fact that our greatest successes were often the result of breaking the rules (like actually putting thought into and applying technology to turf planning) just goes to show that we were assembled by nothing more than dumb luck.
To me--a person who was proud to be involved in the DNC canvass, though with some reservations, despite thinking that GCI's MoveOn campaign was a disaster--there is one central questions left after reading all these diaries: would anyone be able to successfully pull off a membership canvass for a political party without the misleading "Beat Bush" motiff? I also wonder why the right wing--who are often wholeheartedly in favor of exploitive labor practices--doesn't try this shit out.
I don't believe we ever met, but I arrived in San Diego not long after you left. You were extremely well respected by Tommy, Isaac and the rest of the team down there. It is disappointing that someone who is as well-regarded as yourself would also meet with the Doug Phelps Brushoff.
What I don't understand is why GCI seems to take the more abusive aspects of its labor policies as a given. The DNC and DCCC think it is worth spending money to grow their donor rolls (hardly a controversial notion in-and-of-itself). Has anyone at GCI even asked them if they would pay a little more to be able to say they paid their canvassers minimum wage? Is it a lock that they'd say no?
What about asserting that we "should allow for that possibility"? 'Cause that's what Alice actually said.
If saying that X knows more than Y is by definition an ad-hominem, are we ever actually allowed to compare stuff? Shit, if you tell me my plumber knows more about, um, plumbing than I do, I won't take it personally.
I'll accept the possibility that Matt DOES know more than the folks on the ground in Nevada. That certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings, and seeing as how I am generally ideologically disposed in the same direction as Matt, maybe that would be cool (I have some idea of the kind of campaigns he WANTS to see, and I'd have to agree that I WANT to see that kind of campaign as well).
Do we really need evidence to suggest it is possible for a FOOperson to know lots about FOO?
Is it "attacking you personally" to suggest that maybe whoever made Carter's ad might know more than you? Wow.
I am all for holding feet to the fire--especially the feet of Democratic consultants--but if you won't even allow for the possibility that someone who makes media for a living brings some expertise to the mix how can your analysis ever be dispassionate or fruitful? I know the case may be slightly different here (didn't I read that Carter's family or friends produced the ad?), but are you simply questioning the methods and results of certain consultants, or impeaching the very notion of expertise in the field of media production? If the latter, doesn't that mean that there is no hope?
I don't want this to turn into a flame war or penis contest, but I have to say that your combattive tone--which is very appropriate and effective in many corners of the blogosphere--seems really odd paired with MyDD's other posters. I don't mean this to insult you, or to question your effectiveness as an activist, but man, you're a little young to snap at anyone who recommends humility.
I guess I just assumed that Chocola would be one of the 32, but I can see that one.
I guess I am just impressed that they are going hard after this many races to begin with. I am a 50-state strategy man myself, but I think I'd rather have robust buys in 32 districts than sufficient buys in 50. Good god, if we could actually win those 32 seats...we'd be solidly in the majority. It's a weird thing to think, though, because if the number were 16 and not 32 I would be raising a stink.
I know Wyoming is cheap, and things look better than they "ought to" there, but I can't really criticize the DCCC for not dumping cash there.
Word. It is no coincidence that the campaign employing local talent is the one that is integrating the field and communications strategies. Anybody who has ever worked a local, county, or legislative campaign knows that combining the two is not only advantageous, but also a lot more natural than keeping them separate. And anybody who's worked a lowly GOTV position in a large, national campaign knows that this fact is not seen as being able to scale up.
If you're running a race with a VTW of a few thousand, talking to voters face-to-face is not only the smartest way, but also the easiest. Somehow it gets lost that, for instance, a statewide election is really 1,000 little precinct elections.
I think it will be a long time before suburban and urban powerbrokers admit that certain aspects of the way we do business are broken. But what makes me hopeful (and I realize I am not speaking to the Lamont example here) is that as Democrats take more and more rural district/states seriously, it becomes clear that our old model simply doesn't apply (try finding a "block" captain in a district without sidewalks). Necessity is the mother of invention, and all that.
Oh, and damn the Lamont campaign for making me think of the word "synergy" non-ironically.
Yeah, who has a better grasp of their 1s and 2s, a company from New Jersey that was hired a week ago, or Tom Swann? Paid voter contact is OK, but using out-of-state kids as your FIRST resort? Good god.
One of my favorite things about "outsider" or longshot candidates (and Lamont sure used to be a longshot) is that they can usually just let 'er rip on political decisions in a way that wouldn't be strategic (or maybe even wise) if they had as much to lose. In Lamont's case, this meant being able to name a super-field organizer as campaign manager, which I can only imagine has helped integrate field with the media campaign, communications, and so forth.
I know this is all just speculation and basic shit-talking at this point, but if e-day isn't a big disappointment it will look like Lamont built one hell of an innovative campaign (and by "innovative," I don't only mean "acknowledging of bloggers").
We had a great canvass today for Jean Cowan out on the Oregon Coast. One of the greatest things about the 50-state strategy is that it's firing up activists and volunteers in rural, "red" parts of states that are otherwise in-play, like Oregon. I've met some amazing folk out here in the months I've been running this campaign, including and 86-year old woman who canvassed for an extra hour today because she felt she "might as well" finish her walk list.
Before 2005/6, I had literally never once felt positively about the direction in which the Democratic Party is heading. These days, though, I gotta say it's a hell of a feeling!