eCampaigning Archive

This evening, as I finished my work at Cooper, I took a walk over to the Great Hall to listen to Dr. Fred Shapiro introduce Morley Winograd and Michael Hais discuss their new book, “Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics” with a talk asking the question, “Is there a Lincoln or FDR in the 2008 Presidential Race?”

Interestingly, the talk seems to have been a combination of the premise of the book creation, as well as an attempt to answer the question posed at the start of the talk. [Suffice it to say, I think they would say Obama is the next Lincoln/FDR - more on this later] But what was most interesting to me was the discussion of the impact of technology and generational demographics and their impact on American history - which goes to the heart of two of my posts ([1], [2]), “Would social networks impact the 2008 election?”.

At the time, I answered in the negative.

After last night (and this book), I might have a different point of view…

Impact of Technology and Generational Swings

Note: I have only started to read the book as of yet, but I was entranced with the discussion by both speakers and their premises. I must say that I agree with much of what they said and suggest, though I do not completely agree (yet) with some of the mechanisms.

From the start of the talk, Morley drew the obvious parallels with Lincoln and Obama, Steward (Lincoln’s “primary Republican” adversary) and Clinton and the issue of race during the election cycle. [Note: I promise to go into the parallels that exist].

But, what perked my ears and interest was the discussion of generational impact and the advent of technology and the impact it had on campaigns and their hypothesis on how it has, on 40 year cycles (give or take some years) cause a civic realignment in terms of political parties and fundamental populational relationship with government and civic duty.

Winograd and Hais’s basic premise is that civic realignment - where they characterize it by the “enhanced party identification and straight-ticket voting, rising voter turnout or stable turnout at high levels, positive attitudes towards politics and political institutions, and a focus on broader societal and economic concerns rather than social issues involving personal morality”. [p. 27] They argue that this civic realignment is a predictable phenomena that occurs every forty years in America due primarily to:

• political coming-of-age of a large dynamic generation, and
• emergence of a new communication technology

which results in clear changes in:

• electoral results: major parties change power
• voting behavior: South going Democratic, after being Republican and back, and
• public policy: from a laissez faire foreign policy to a force-projection policy in 1932

With this premise, Winograd and Hais posit that this generation - the Millennials - will cause another major civic shift and cause a new outcome in our government that focuses on the societal and economic issues of the day, rather than the divisive issues of our time.

I could short-circuit the discussion with the final statements that:

• likely winner of the Presidential election: Barack Obama
• movement of civic involvement in a more responsible fashion: college for public service (as in AmeriCore and Kerry’s National Service program)
• redistribution of wealth from the top 1% to a more even spread
• acceptance of programs that require group sacrifice, rather than blind ignorance of the hidden cost of inaction

I must say that I am pleased this is being painted, and hope that it does come about - which we will see what happens in the coming months. I believed it as the time with Kerry and Dean (as Winograd and Hais said that the Millennials and the Boomers did vote overwhelmingly for), but the weight of the Millennials were not felt until this year - and this cycle. And for that, I look forward to seeing the outcome.

After the fold, I give a short summary of their premise.
Read the rest of this entry »

As I went for my snack of cashews this evening, I took a glance at the newest Rolling Stone and saw the cover that graces this post. Underneath the “A New Hope” title, I saw the subtitle that I had been waiting for, “The Machinery of Hope“, covering the process story that I wondered if it would ever see the light of day.

I got a little guff from some other posters out there about my article on whether or not would social networks impact the 2008 election, and I think that the premise of my argument might have got lost in the translation. Simply, the idea that social networks like Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, hi5, MyYearbook and the other 100+ social networks that currently line the Internet landscape would not seriously impact the election if the campaigns did not apply resources to the problem of virtual canvassing.

What pleased me in reading this article from Rolling Stone was the fact that the campaign married online engagement with offline activities and vice versa. Never a campaign event went off without capturing people’s email addresses, zip codes and names as they came to the event. Never a chance was forgotten to drive engagement both online and off - using the MyBO site to drive involvement and community. I just pulled out of one of my (many) proposals to campaigns from prior to the 2006 elections where I request the candidate and their campaign to:

The goal of any campaign is to convert uninterested persons into avid supporters – developing a relationship with these supporters over the course of the campaign. Migrating supporters along this path is an art, rather than a science – since the details of conversion are often considered nebulous at best (e.g. like his looks, his stance on taxes, his wife’s cookie recipe), but the steps are almost always the same – and evidenced in any involvement effort.

Physical Events – fundraisers, rallies, field events

At these events – the two most important actions are the acquisition of email addresses by the staff at the event, the branding of all candidate merchandise with the campaign URL and finally, the candidate mentioning the website URL in his speech and other opportunities.

The conversion ratio (number of emails that become active supporters) is always highest through this method – they have self-selected by coming to the event, and they have expressed an interest by signing the form/giving a business card.

Driving the point home that getting involved with the campaign is all at the website will drive interested activists to the site and signup.

Follow up is key – as with any effort – a thank you note with information regarding the candidate allows the supporter to see the campaign values their time and offers the supporter a chance to “get involved” in other ways. The conversion rate of confirmed supporters goes up with just this simple gesture.

This concept was brought home to me over the years whenever I would see how the people we met at events would be more enthusiastic that the people who just gave their email or money over the Internet. The simple lesson is: if they care enough to spend some of their time to come out to an event, they more than likely will do more for you beyond just listening and cheering.

A chance to build up some “social capital”

Additionally, the article in Rolling Stone discusses the marriage of old-school shoe leather campaigning with “new-era” technology - which can be simply read as opening up the supporter database. To credit David Weinberger with his request from the 2004 Politics Online Conference, he asked why didn’t the Dean Campaign let the grassroots run with the campaign? Because, unlike this cycle, training and organizing of the grassroots was not supported by the campaign.

Read the rest of this entry »

I have been reading all sorts of posts on the performance of the different campaigns, including Colin Delany’s post on TechPresident about John Edward’s $1M funding surprise in five days and the insurgence of online fundraising after a successful win in Iowa and/or in New Hampshire. Well, I have always had the online stats from those first two weeks after Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire and thought maybe I could share them with you.

(click to see larger image)

Performance-based Metrics

One of the things we were doing from November until January was trying to unlock the secrets of fundraising and online performance. I spent untold hours pouring over data and online donations to determine the potential success formula. We learned that more pages on a contribution page is bad (went from a 20% conversion rate to an 80% conversion rate), one page minimum on the forms, fewer elements are better (you do not need them to check off each line on the FEC disclaimer) and watched how the conversion rate (contributions/unique visitors and finished contributing/started contributing) improved. But nothing could prepare us for the avalanche that happened on the day after Iowa.

Read the rest of this entry »

On the 12th of September, it will be was the fourth anniversary of my involvement in US politics - from the presidential to the state level - and I have worked on campaigns from as lofty as JK’s 2004 Presidential effort to a local run (Jennifer Gottlieb’s run for an At-Large seat on the Broward County School Board). In this cycle, I find myself on the sidelines - due to forces beyond my control (thanks to the “speed and rapidity” of the NY Supreme Court System).

In 2003, I came into politics with the enthusiasm as any American school kid does - fed the stories of civic action, civic duty and the thinking that with good intention and hard work, you could make change happen in the political process. And, from my experiences, I think for the most part, you can - especially in the primaries or on the edges where the elephants (and donkeys) will not risk to play. But when risk is mitigated, the older, wiser “A-team” comes calling, and the younger, less-experienced are layered, transferred or simply pushed to the edges. The process teaches you valuable lessons for both politics and life in general - if properly seen in context.

But being on the outside of the campaign cycle this year has given me a chance to see if the hub-bub about this being the Year of the Internet is all that it is cracked up to be. From my vantage point, I think the hype is not going to make up for the lack of connectivity that people think the Internet (and social networks) are supposed to bring.

Will Social Networks Impact The Election?

I was asked this question last year by my friend from Wired, after I finished with another campaign, and I can STILL heartily say - even with techpresident’s MySpace, Facebook and YouTube counters - I believe that social networks will still NOT impact the coming 2008 election.

Read the rest of this entry »

Crossposted from Social Engineer:

The final panel of the day has Zack Exley and Mike Turk moderating a panel on this cycle’s eCampaign Managers: Joe Trippi from John Edwards 2008; Christian Ferry from John McCain 2008; Mindy Finn from Romney 2008; Peter Daou from Clinton 2008; and Josh Orton from Obama08.

Mike: Discussing how the CIO ended up creating things to move on tech within business. Similar to campaigns - once someone has the insight into managing the implementation of technology across an organization - they have the responsibility of the increased performance through technology.

Zack: DeanTV - back in 2004 was a big deal. how the whole campaign going to ask for money - every big decision was coordinated with the campaign team. Joining the Kerry Campaign, we were in the basement, in a closet - it was not John Kerry talking, it was the “beer” (Ari-Rabin Havt and Zack in their own little hovel in the campaign office - my addition).

Trippi: the issue is about command and control structures. Campaigns have problems decentralizing campaigns. In the Dean Campaign, the Internet team was huddled in a small office. This year, integration of the web team within and throughout the campaign. Some of it is due to the toolset and the opportunities to impact across the landscape.

Four years later, we now have to manage YouTube, Facebook, eventful, MySpace - need to integrate with the rest of the campaign. Have to be involved with the net. Scheduling (though eventful) is being used to pull the campaign into interacting with the web.

Read the rest of this entry »

Corssposted from Social Engineer

Coming in late for live blogging…

Josh Marshall: input from the readers is key to everything you do. Sort of open source journalism. But use it in a highly mediated way. Talking Points Memo does not support comments - legacy concept (when he used to do HTML from the beginning). Josh got used to email communications and filtered/mediated. Very little user generated content.

Want to ensure quality content - best way editorial is the best way to highlight higher quality content versus wiki work that allows for user-generated. Started TPM back in 2000 - never heard of open-source journalism - he just responded to the positive feedback and it was not until 2004 that he started using the blog as a tool for mobilizing. It was the Sinclair Advertising effort that he made an effort and wanted to get things to happen and work with people to accomplish something. Did something similar with Tom Delay, Social Security and then the ball started to roll.

Moderator: reporter - it is your credibility, your name. As a politician - you are projecting an image. Then, suddenly you have an outsider making videos and comments that becomes associated with something outside of the mainstream.

Why is mySpace doing a two-state poll?

Jeff Berman (mySpace): political activity: Katrina, mid-term elections - after Impact Channel and the Presidential MySpace pages. Friend do have benefits in this community. Straw polls make sense - and the users desire it.

Question to Steve Urquhart - why are the electeds not allowing for transparency showing the bills that happen? The Republicans have crippled themselves with this issue.

Rep Urquhart - candidates are open during campaigns, after being elected are being closed. Understandable bills are needed. We need to clarify the neutral description supporting pro and con argument. people need to understand the arguments. Words really matter - and, instead of an or. Need to flesh-out all of the people. Need informed discussion.

Read the rest of this entry »

This morning, I got an email from an old friend of mine, Aldon Hynes, who made two interesting posts at Greater Democracy:

• Keeping Personal Democracy Personal
  where he talks about the migration of politics from the personal to the professional, where the operations of politics is about optimizing certain performance metrics, and
• Interaction and Interactivity
  where Aldon discusses the difference between “interaction” (where you respond to a stimulus given) and “interactivity” (where a conversation or dialog ensues between a grouping).

In reading his posts, I see a lament of the migration from a civic, personal contact to a business mentality of running a campaign. Considering the masses under nebulous demographic and psychographic metrics may seem cold and calculating, but the challenge of achieving the goals of campaigns is to win. And to win, the campaigns have little else to do but place bets on particular expenditures, rather than trying to be all things to all people.

Read the rest of this entry »

Yes, after all of these posts about websites and opinions on political matters, a “how to” post. The inspiration comes from a conversation with my friend Howard Greenstein, CEO of Social Media Club who just came from a lecture where he was a panelist on SEO/SEM. Funnily enough, what he told me has been second nature to so many sites that most people forget, and do not think to improve once they have it. So, to help in the discussion, let me give you my quick-and-dirty list of “to-dos” for improving SEO/SEM.

Read the rest of this entry »

Interested in a conversation about Social Media in this coming season? Join us today at the New York Social Media Club where we will be discussing the use of social media in political campaigns and how they have and will (potentially) impact this cycle’s elections.

Joining us will be:

• Noel Hidalgo - part of BarCamp and the “unconference” scene
• Joshua Levy - associate editor of Personal Democracy and TechPresident
• Adam Mordicai - founder of Advomatic, proving Drupal-based solutions and former Dean campaign member

Please join our host, Howard Greenstein and Nate Westheimer of VentBox for a very interesting evening.

Happen to be discussing with Colin over at e.politics about blogrolls, and he points out an excellent blog called Dr. Digipol, of which I have not seen before. I begin reading it, and alight upon this post about CapWiz’s testing of email advocacy tools in communicating with members of Congress. In reading his post, I came upon the following passage:

… But the important issue here is not which software vendor is better at jumping through Congress’s hoops. It is that Congress is creating hoops in the first place.

If Congress is flooded with more constituent email than it can handle, it should increase its resources to handle it, not figure out ways to block constituent email. Efforts to block email will only give advantage to the larger, better resourced advocacy software vendors over the smaller ones. In essence, Congress is perpetrating anti-trust behavior by creating uneven market advantages for some vendors.

Worse, the barriers erected by Congress are obstructing real constituents from petitioning Congress via email. Consider that one office implementing the Logic Puzzle saw an 80% drop in email coming in through their servers. There is absolutely no way that all 80% of those emails were SPAM. Even the most generous estimates are that about 10% of emails flowing into Congressional offices are SPAM. The rest of the blocked email represent citizens denied their First Amendment rights.

The problems that need fixing are clear, and they are not the responsibility of the software vendors or the advocacy community. They are Congress’s responsibility. First, Congress must provide itself with the necessary resources to handle constituent email. In the last 5 years, constituent communication to Congress has increased 4-fold. In the past 25 years, Congress has not increased its staff or administrative budget. Further, instead of having a Congress-wide standard for email, each office is flying solo, free to choose its own system, its own subject headings for incoming email, etc.

If Congress is committed to constituent services, then it would create an environment that welcomes constituent communications and effectively processes them when they arrive. When that happens, there will no longer be any issue about which grassroots advocacy system is better at delivering email to Congress.

Here, here.

And what was even more surprising was the backlash it begat at Democracy in Action (where the testing methodology was not effective in handling DiA’s processes, and getActive’s request for the effectiveness numbers that Colin posted from the study to be taken down.

Interesting to see something like this performed, and amusing to see CapWiz be the leader of the bunch. Personal amusement was Convio and Kintera’s numbers, if only for the fact that they did not make a stink about the test themselves.

tags: Email Advocacy Tools, Email Campaign Tools, CapWiz, Democracy in Action, getActive