I think the key here is forcing Collins to vote to end the war. If she votes with the Democrats she probably keeps her Senate seat by cementing her moderate credentials, but if she doesn't then she's that's a pretty big schism in her image.
I think you're right about Texas being where this plays out the most. California was pretty red when Pete Wilson was governor and Prop 187 changed that, at least federally. It would benefit from a closer look at the demographics of California then and Texas now (any takers?), but my impression is that they're similar.
The thing about immigration is it serves as a bellweather for what kind of person you are. Make Cornyn repeat his nutty rhetoric and it'll turn off moderate voters who don't follow the issue closely but don't like extremists. That shift, Latinos and moderates voting to oust an extremist, is the play.
Good that they're doing this, but does anyone know how many times the ad will run in each state? The size of the ad buy sounds small given the number of states. It seems like this is meant for bloggers and earned media to cover; the ads won't run enough for people to notice them otherwise.
I wonder if it's a better strategy to push a change in course and an end to the war through legislation that can be filibustered or through budget bills that can't be. Budget bills will pass, but Bush will veto them - then Bush is in the news. Filibusters put Senate Rs in the news, and make them defend their votes back home.
Hopefully Reid's strategy is to use overcoming the fillibuster as a way to get Rs voting to end the war and then pivot to the budget bills that will actually bring the troops home.
Ok, I follow now. I think the high mobility you mention among twenty somethings is more of an issue. But maybe not, because the high mobility becomes an excuse to not reach out to young voters - even in spaces like Facebook that aren't geographic.
And I agree that Facebook offers the chance to take the Dear Neighbor idea - you're right that it's usualy a small part of campaigns - and make it much bigger and more far reaching.
Yeah, I totally agree. It's tough to have canvassers reconnect with the people they've canvassed; it's a lot to track centrally. To pick a another parallel, when I ask my friends to email their legislator there's usually not a way to see if they did. By decentralizing, Facebook makes it much easier for me to see where my friends are at and talk to them about it. So I think you're right that Facebook makes it more efficient and systematic.
Longer voting periods - mail, absentee ballot, changing election day to election month, etc - offer an added advantage that you can get a list of who has voted from the Board of Elections.
Imagine something like this: I put an I'm voting for X badge on my facebook account by registering with my name and address. I tell my friends to do it too. Some of them do. Voting starts. The campaign changes the badges of the people who have voted to something flashy that thanks me for voting. Now there's public pressure and recognition for me to vote too as I see all my friends doing it (and everyone else sees that I haven't).
Incidentally, that's also part of why TV is so expensive. It's not worthwhile to run a TV ad once because the ad won't register. You need to run it enough so that people will see it 8 times for it to have an impact.
I think that divide between field and voter reg comes from current campaign finance laws. C3 money can pay for nonpartisan voter registration. Canvassing is expensive and microtargeting is the rage, so campaigns offload the voter reg to c3 groups and focus on turning out registered voters they think will vote for them.