Daily Kos

How BC04 made better use of its email list

Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:31:23 AM PDT

Interesting analysis:
Although I don't actually claim that Bush won because of usability, I
do think that wise use of email newsletters contributed to his victory. I analyzed the email newsletters sent out by both candidates in the week prior to the election. The predominant theme of each message was distributed as follows:

                       Bush   Kerry
    Give Money
          8%     57%
    Get Out the Vote    38%     29%
    Issues/Events       54%     14%

(I didn't count the message each candidate sent on or just before Election Day asking recipients for their vote.)

As this analysis shows, Kerry supporters were bombarded by repeated fundraising requests, to the extent that many of them probably tuned out the newsletter in the final critical days. Although the Internet is great for collecting money from the masses, there is a limit. Kerry exceeded it.

Bush sent more messages than Kerry asking supporters to get other voters to go to the polls and vote for him. This is a more appropriate use of the newsletter medium because it connects emotionally with subscribers. Being treated as an active participant in the civics process is more motivating than being regarded as an open wallet.

Bush also repeatedly sent out information that promoted himself and attacked his opponent in relation to current events (such as the Osama video). This is a good strategy: offering newsworthy content makes subscribers more likely to continue opening newsletters. Up-to-the-minute arguments are a classic use of email and gave Bush's supporters fodder in their get-out-the-vote efforts, thus reinforcing the newsletter's value in getting voters to the polls.

In summary, Kerry used his newsletter to collect money. Bush used his to increase voter turnout, and he won because he was better at turning out his base. Understanding the strength of email newsletters thus directly contributed to Bush's victory, so his Internet team can claim some credit for the outcome.

The Dean campaign made the same error. Unfortunately, that institutional memory wasn't transferred to the Kerry campaign.
  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 238 comments

  •  agreed (4.00 / 13)

    i got so sick of requests for money that i didn't even read the emails anymore after the middle of october
    i was getting them "from" carville, cahill, kerry, edwards, hilary everyone and they were all the same
    help us raise 2 million by the end of the day

    email: tlawkos@yahoo.com

    by tlaw on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:31:08 AM PDT

    •  Dawg (4.00 / 5)

      Yeah, that's a good point. I was lot more likely to make a joke to my girlfriend that, "Oh, I just got an e-mail from Bill Clinton!" than to actually read the damn thing. I don't think they should gin up essentially phony "from" addresses. They should have real staffers write them, and build up their own reps with the online community. That feels a lot more legit than getting a fake e-mail from the Big Dog.
      •  Very true. (none / 0)

        I was making phone calls to people who had signed up as Kerry volunteers, trying to get them to go out and canvass (NOT give money), but about 1 person in 8 would hang up the phone the moment I said I was with the Kerry campaign -- a sure sign that they were sick of being asked for money.
      •  totally right (4.00 / 3)

        The Kerry emails were so obviously polished and spun and speechwritered that they just got to be insufferable. It was like reading a press release, not an email. We really have to make sure that doesn't happen again. Two easy rules:
        1. When you ask for money, tie it to a specific issue or event that happened- that's what worked so well for MoveOn,
        2. Write real messages from actual people- all of their warts and humanity makes them so much more appealing.
      •  totally right (none / 0)

        The Kerry emails were so obviously polished and spun and speechwritered that they just got to be insufferable. It was like reading a press release, not an email. We really have to make sure that doesn't happen again. Two easy rules:
        1. When you ask for money, tie it to a specific issue or event that happened- that's what worked so well for MoveOn,
        2. Write real messages from actual people- all of their warts and humanity makes them so much more appealing.
    •  Concur (none / 1)

      Those really bothered me.  And the 2 or 3 phone calls a week from the DNC.  At first, I felt bad because I wanted to give more, but couldn't.  By the Friday before the election, I got pissed that they didn't get the message that I wasn't giving any more.

      I still put in time with the letters and phone calls.  Imagine how someone who contributed once, planned to vote, but didn't want to do more would have reacted to that constant bombardment.  That's not winning hearts and minds.

      Isn't a centrist just someone who doesn't have the balls to be a fanatic? -- Stephen Colbert

      by Muboshgu on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:34:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah... (none / 0)

        My ceiling had just fallen down in our dining room (from rains following the 4 hurricanes) and I got an email from Hillary Clinton asking for money.  I wrote back telling her I had no way to pay for another freaking ceiling (and roof) and she could send ME some freaking money, or shut the hell up. I never got another email from her.  Pissed me off forEVER.
        And fuck FEMA, by the way....

        War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

        by Margot on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:44:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Requests after the deadline (3.33 / 3)

      Those requests kept coming in after the federal funding deadline also.  I knew that K/E Campaign wasn't going to get the money - who was and what was it going to be used for?  That was never discussed.

      sPh

      •  It went to the DNC n/t (none / 0)

        So if "liberals" are an "elite", how come we aren't in charge?

        by Pam in MA on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 11:49:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  where the money would go... (none / 1)

        I was a volunteer fund-raiser and organizer for John Kerry; did a bunch of low-dollar happy hours and brought a lot of young first-time donors into the fold.  I can answer this question...

        The campaign couldn't raise money because it could only spend the $75 million in public funding that it received after the Convention.  However, the party could raise for "party-building," voter motivation, GOTV, etc.  That's where your money went any time the click-through was to democrats.org.

        Also, McCain-Feingold created a carve-out (cynics might say "loophole") for campaigns to raise money to cover its legal compliance costs -- basically, recognizing that the whole process of preparing FEC filings and so forth could be a huge resource drain and seriously cut into the $75M that would otherwise be used for true campaigning.  So if your solicitation linked through to johnkerry.com, you were contributing to the General Election Legal And Compliance fund or "GELAC."

        For what it's worth, speaking as a young person and someone who did solely grassroots stuff in previous campaigns, I found fund-raising to be really interesting and a great way to start people thinking about getting involved.  I agree with the core message here about its overuse in the final weeks.  Based on my experience, I also agree with the poster who said the emails should come from "real people" instead of Bill and Hill... the strength of any fund-raising network is the strength of its members' relationships with their friends and co-workers.

    •  It was very frustrating (none / 1)

      I agree the list seemed endless from Democratic operatives asking for money.  I was also on the BC/04 email list because I wanted to keep track of what they were saying.  Knowledge is power or so they say.  I'm not sure how that fits with this adminstration but that's another show.  

      This is a lesson to be learned.  After deleting all the pleas for money I came on Kos to find out what the issues were that were being talked about.  Sad statement but true.

      I will not die an unlived life. Not in fear, I will live out loud and on the record. Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) 1-800-787-3224 (TTY)

      by caliberal on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:37:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, there is a difference (4.00 / 2)

      RNC has big-money donations from corporate america. THe DNC just does not.

      The DNC needs to ask for your money, because the RNC relies on their $1000 a plate dinners and wealthy banquets to get their cash flow.

      $64K
      How do you compete with big money without sounding like beggars?

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

      by sacrelicious on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:42:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tell this in communication (none / 0)

        show the direct connection between wealthy donors and policy.  Then say how you will represent the individual, not the corporation.  If the Dems need a bogeyman, the unethical corporation (not all, just the unethical ones) should be that bogeyman.
      •  While we are looking on the bright side.... (none / 0)

        I will say that the email donation requests did cut down on the snail mail and phone calls. I think I got one phone call asking for money and I told them quite bluntly that I preferred to give online because I hated begging phone calls and was mindful of the environmental implications of snail mail. They got the message.  

        Bluestocking in a red state

        by Liz P on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 01:02:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, God, is that true. (none / 1)

      Email after email. Direct mail after direct mail. Give us money, money, money, money, money, money. Every damn nationally known Democrat's name used over on committee-generated messages that the signer had never seen. The campaign pissed away funds on this waste at the same time that offices in battleground states couldn't get bumper stickers, signs, even office supplies.

      - What happens on DailyKos, stays on Google.

      by Jon Meltzer on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:58:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh darn you! (none / 1)

        Now I can't the theme from "The Apprentice" out of my head...LOL.

        "Edwards Evolution, New Revolution" ~ http://www.eenrblog.com/

        by catchawave on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 11:23:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That is true (none / 1)

        I'm in Ohio, and I couldn't get a bumper sticker except from MoveOn.

        War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

        by Margot on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 11:39:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  At least you had MoveOn. (none / 1)

          I'm in Texas. I had to buy my K/E bumper stickers off the 'Net.

          My next bumper sticker is going on very soon: "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry."

        •  Supplies (none / 0)

          I worked for the Feingold campaign in Madison, WI and we always had problems keeping items in stock.  We completely ran out of yard signs a good month before the election, with bumper stickers and pins following soon after that.  The problem was that we didn't anticipate such a huge demand for these things.  The senior staff members were saying that we ordered around 5 times as many yard signs as in the '98 campaign and still ran out way ahead of schedule.
      •  I want the Democratic party to die a quick death (none / 0)

        Just want to repeat the subject, in case it was not read: "I want the Democratic party to die a quick death"

        They promised bumper stickers linked to a specific fundraising deadline. They never arrived!! Biggest fundraising ever, and these incompetents cannot manage such a simple thing.

        Just a big open maw saying 'Feed Me'. Mary Cahill was the worst. Why are we not hearing Mary and Terry being out on the streets, looking for new work?

        I am not giving a cent till they have a big overhaul. The sooner they die the better.

        •  Fucking seriously. (none / 0)

          I don't even know who mary beth cahill is, except for the fact that she sent me five emails a day asking me for money I don't have. How the shit am I supposed to help them raise $2,000,000 by 6 PM when I don't have a job?

          I stopped reading them after the first three because they were just terrible, awful, speechwritten garbage. If I wasn't such a diehard, I'd have said "fuck it" and not voted just to spite them.

          Someone send this thread to the democratic party so they can get their shit together and respect my damn inbox like moveon does.

      •  Famous Emails (none / 0)

        Yes, I was really disappointed that the Bill Clinton email wasn't some policy/inspiring kind of thing. You can ask for money at the end but the messages themselves should not solely be about money.

        On the other hand, Atrios' message was very effective, explicitly mentioning strategy and what I could help them buy. I didn't give, but that was one I read and seriously considered.

        I had given at one of the early "deadlines" and the MORE MORE MORE was feeling a little like a vampire. Tell us what you can do that you can't do now. Tell us what we can do if we're poor.

        MoveOn is doing great with their email campaigns.

        Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

        by elfling on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 03:42:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Agree (4.00 / 2)

      I stopped reading them. I got my info from the blogs. Maybe writing message emails would have helped them craft their own message. Certainly the Bush people always sound like they are reading from the same email. Maybe its part of a larger message discipline deficit.
    •  I agree (none / 0)

      It seems everyday was the "deadline". And the money we sent seems to have disappeared since there is no recount or even an effort to ensure a count.

      Bush has been playing games with troops for years, he just graduated to using real troops.

      by Tomtech on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 11:37:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  WTF mate? (4.00 / 3)

      Hi, this is John Kerry.. give me your money.
      Hi, this is Bill Clinton.. give us your money.
      Hi, this is Hilary Clinton.. we'd like to have your money.
      Hi, this is John Kerry again.. I've given you no new reasons to give me money, but now we would like more of your money.

      When there is a candidate that's fighting for my beliefs instead of riding the line to save his ass with undecided voters.. I'll give you my damn money! Until then, I don't want to see another "17th most important fundraising deadline ever" e-mail again.

      Jeezus!

    •  Absolutely true! (none / 0)

      In addition, when I signed on to do phone calls, I got turfed back to more solicitations for funds.  

      When someone eventually called me to make calls, they asked me to make them to Democrats in Los Angeles.  Duh!  I don't mind talking to receptive people but it didn't do a thing to add a vote!  

      There's a serious disconnect with the people who want to make a difference.

      •  Phone Banking only to Democrats (none / 0)

        I agree I volunteered and spent my time calling democrats to urge them to vote by absentee ballot & early voting. Also we canvassed door to door (well not quite) only to democrats doors. The thought was if you called a repub you might energize one of them to get out & vote for Bush. Maybe but I thought we should contact those undecideds or in the case here in Florida, the Independents.  Here when you register you have to declare your affiliation dem, repub or indep. So we knew who they were but never targeted them.  Big mistake I think. On the few days before 11-2 we had volunteers falling over themselves & still just contacting the Dems.  Also our urging to use absentee ballots & early voting hurt us here, both were screwed up big time, 1,000's of ballots not delivered in time for them to be returned by 11-2 & too few early voting places so many finally left without voting after standing in line for hours. I'm still not sure Diebold didn't win Fl. for bush. There was hardly a bush yard sign or bumper sticker to be seen in Palm Beach County & many, many Kerry 's. In 2000 Bush signs outnumbered Gore's by alot but not this time. Check out the following: Karmic Blowback & the Democrats http://www.counterpunch.org/spark11032004.html
    •  Snail mail, e-mail requests (none / 0)

      I'm a registered voter out here in SF, no party affiliation, 22 years old, voted for Kerry. I signed up online to volunteer for the Kerry/Edwards campaign early this summer, but I never got a response. But I did get tons of e-mails asking me for money.

      My grandpa who donated money to the Clinton/Gore campaign in 1996, they kept mailing him requests for money at least 3 times a week. It was really annoying. One phone called would have done the trick, and saved the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the DNC all that money they spent on postage.    

      Lies, Torture and the American Way! (My Apologies to Superman)

      by Darksyde888 on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 02:06:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  agreed (none / 0)

      Ditto.  They were a complete joke.  And what ever happened to the "Women for Kerry" "take five" program?  Never heard a thing about it once I signed up.
  •  I hope someone at the DNC is reading. (none / 0)

    Hello to Elizabeth Edwards!

    (She wrote on DU that she was spending lots of time on the comp as she's often too tired undergoing treatment for cancer.)

    •  Elizabeth Edwards (4.00 / 2)

      For some reason, the news of Elizabeth's breast cancer really just broke my heart. She fought along with her husband for America, and now she has to fight this battle too.

      She strikes me as a bright, warm, strong person but right now, things have to be very hard for her.

      I would really like to give her a hug, or do something for her. Could we get a little fund together to donate to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation in her name, you think?

      •  Elizabeth Edwards message site (none / 0)

        Here's a site where you can post prayers and wishes for Elizabeth. They review the messages before posting, thank goodness.

        Elizabeth, if you are cozied up to the computer reading this, tell John to get cracking on investigating voter fraud. I assume he has some people who are especially good at prying open corporate secrets!

  •  i experienced that (4.00 / 4)

    i started ignoring the e-mails because i knew they were just asking for money, even though the titles suggested some actual substantive content which wound up not being there.  When i signed up for the newsletters, i really thought i'd be getting useful information.

    Learning that B/C actually sent stuff motivating their base to GOTV is frustrating.

    tikkun olam -- heal the world

    by bjeanh1 on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:31:49 AM PDT

  •  Now that's about the first thing I've seen (4.00 / 3)

    That goes to the heart of the issue. If there is one thing that Kerry's campaign could have done better, it would be the communication of specific issues.

    If you get involved, you know the issues, but the average voter does not know what the issues are. They just don't. So when Bush pushes an issue in newsletters to his base, Kerry responds by sending out a newsletter saying "GOTV" or "Donate"...but nothing that says "I'm against domestic abuse" or "Remember, only one candidate wants to balance the budget."

    •  Issues? (none / 0)

      Forgive me, but my brain hasn't exactly functioned normally since Nov 3 and I wasn't in a battleground state.

      What were the issues that the Kerry campaign was promoting, that didn't get through via the emails (which I setup a Spam filter for...set to automatic delete)?

      I am asking half seriously and half sarcastically because as a partisan democrat who has followed this election since the day Gore conceeded, I still have no idea what Kerry stands/stood for. OTOH, I know what Bush stands for, even thought I don't agree with any of his positions.

      Ms. Problem meet, Mr. Root.

      •  Yup (4.00 / 2)

        I had to really dig to see what Kerry stood for. And I found it, and I liked it. I found by looking at those famous senate votes everyone loved talking about, because as soon as my Republican freinds trotted out Kerry's voting record, I'd nail 'em. I'd nail them with the fact Kerry voted to cut taxes over 300 times. I'd nail them with the fact that Kerry voted against damaging reforms attempted by Reagan and Bush 41.

        But do I expect a country who worries more about the fictional characters on "The O.C" and who will win "Survivor" to actually research Kerry's votes? No, I don't. Once again, we have a Dem candidate who would never talk about what people wanted him to talk about. I like Kerry. But again, I looked into his stance and record. Most people won't. I doubt that most people even know that Bush supports civil unions, or that Kerry voted against big corporations to save jobs in California in the early 90's.

        Point? I think Kerry won the election, and I'll believe until someone decides to "be bothered" enough to actually go and review the vote counts and the machines that counted them. I just don't get the wak acceptance of easily manipulated machines.But, I've been arguing for a war on two fronts,  because I don't think it should be this close.

        The vote should be transparent,and the candidates should be transparent. Well, like Dean or Obama.

        •  couldn't have said it better.... (none / 0)

          That's exactly how I feel.  I was the biggest news nerd there was in this election, I read anything I could get my hands on.  I actually started this election out semi-undecided.  Up until the end of 2003 I was actually a republican. (At least thought I was, I'm only 23 and was just following my Dad.  I also had never voted before, so don't hate me too much...I've seen the light!).  Sometime after Christmas I woke up and started looking at things objectively.  So I wanted to see what Kerry was all about.  So I went to his website, and sites like this.   I kept up with the events of each day.  I knew every issue inside and out.

          That's probably one of the reasons why it was so frustrating to watch the crappy cable news yell shows, and hear people talk about how Kerry hadn't defined himself or his message.  I knew what he stood for, but up until recently, I just hadn't realized that the average joe did not care to know as much as I had learned over the past year.

          Kerry's message was really very incoherant at times.  You had to sit there and analyze what he said at times.  I'm not even sure if he really stood for what I thought he did, maybe I was just hearing what I wanted to.  Bush had a solid simple message that any of his people could easily repeat.  Kerry didn't.  I really wish Kerry had been able to hone his message before August.  

          OH then there's August....grrrrrr.  I can't believe they didn't respond to the swift boat ads sooner.......

  •  Hmmm... (none / 1)

    ... what about the 527's though? I received a ton of email asking for participation in getting out the vote.

    I did not receive a ton of email talking about issues however. No one tried to motivate me by asking me to hate my neighbor and fear anyone that didn't look like me.

    Tell me... what did Bush's "issue" emails consist of?

    Full Disclosure: I am Chair of the Darius Shahinfar for Congress Campaign Committee in NY-21.

    by Andrew C White on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:32:11 AM PDT

    •  Ohio (none / 1)

      In Ohio the focus was on GOTV. It's too general to say that all we were asked to do was give money. I gave once. The rest of my time and thousands of other Kerry supporters was spent on the phone, on the street and in our cars on election day. Anyone that feels they have to create a reason why we lost and they won then I say do whatever, or say whatever will get you to the other side of your pain. In my opinion it's way too simple to say they worked harder on getting their base to the voting booths than we did.  We walked the streets every weekend. We registered 150% more voters in 2004 than we did in 2000 and we DID contact our base in all the basic ways. Kerry workers, ACT, and the unions as well among other 527s. So I ask that you don't blame us for the loss. I ask that you don't blame Kerry either. I think Kerry was a good candidate. We only lost by one state, Ohio. He was up against a group that was willing to do anything to win. there was plenty of anti-voter ploys employed in Ohio, no the least of which were, long lines, faux letters, lost absentee ballots and names being left off the books. If anything I think we were trying to speak to the issues that mattered to individuals and their daily lives. They spoke to fear, ignorance(what % of their voters still believe that Hussein had to do with 9/11?), and same sex marriage. I hope the Dems never play on peoples fears,racism, ignorance and never use the pain of others(911 victims) to win elections.  It's really NOT so funny realizing that so many have already bought into their spin about how they were so much better in the field than we were. That's an insult to those of us who were in the field for the past 2 years. Whatever!
      •  No, no, no (none / 0)

        it's not about how hard we worked.  Just what can we do better next time.  I want to get 90 percent of the vote.  

        We are not using the internet or email like we could.  It is the most cost effective tool we have.  These old white men need to turn this over to a new generation.

      •  At the risk of sounding like a flip-flopper, (none / 0)

        I do agree with both sides of the fence here. We ran a decent campaign in many ways AND yet there were things that could have been improved. Let's isolate problems now, not so anyone can be blamed - but so we can kick their ass in the next election.  

        When you're fighting someone as dirty as the current Republican Machine, you have one of two options: be just as dirty, or work a lot smarter. I'll take the latter option every time.

        I would say, the appeals for money did get a little tiresome. Particularly because I was starving for real inside news or positions on the issues, and felt it never came via the emails. Someone said upstream that it'd be OK to tag a call for money at the end, as long as there's some inspirational/informational message beforehand, that's right on target.

        I would have loved to learn more about Kerry's thoughts on the issues, something written by him personally, even just a few lines each email.

        Also, I thought it was a shame they didn't tout things in the emails like Kerry's endorsement by the Humane Society and his flawless voting record for animal rights.

  •  Bush Email Lists (4.00 / 2)

    I suspect the Bush email lists grew in part because of emails that went out to people about social and cultural issues, and asking them to add their names and emails to petitions, public statements, etc.  My stepdad gets plenty of these kinds of emails--he's retired and worked with a bunch of fairly conservative folks, and is on a bunch of lists of people he knows through his Catholic parish, some of whom are Catholic fundies--and he showed me some of them over the last couple years.  I've suspected all along that these were lists that would eventually end up either in the hands of the Bush campaign or in the hands of groups like Gary Bauer's that would use social/cultural issues as an organizing/GOTV tool.  Thus, if I'm correct, their lists were much more ideological "pure" and homogeneous, and probably more activist oriented than the Kerry lists.  

    Besides, Repubs haven't been able to use internet fundraising as effectively as us, so why continue to harp on something that is a lower yield activity, especially when they were raising far more money off the internet than were the Dems.  

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by DHinMI on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:34:06 AM PDT

    •  exactly (none / 1)

      while we can complain about the number of emails that we got asking for money we need to keep in mind that it was successful.  we raised skads more money than the Republicans, it wasnt even close.

      i just read through this guys analysis and the biggest fault i have with it is that he only used one email address with one zip code locator.  thus where he lived had a significant impact on the type and number of emails he received.  email targeting is an enormously complicated process.  they routinely not only send out test emails to a certain subsect, but they also change what emails go out to different demographics and areas.  a 20 y.o female in NYC should be getting fairly different emails than a 40 male in Columbus.

      what would be more interesting is if he had tested a number of different locations and entered in vastly different demographics.  additionally (totally pie in the sky dream) it would be facisnating to know what the open rate and click through rate was for both of candidates systems.  you will always have a degeneration of unsubscribes, open rates and click throughs if you abuse your list.  they have to balance that with their needs.  Kerry obviously really needed the money to be able to compete with the Republicans, that was at the cost of not having as many informative motivational emails.  there is always a trade off when it comes to email lists.

      this is why i am totally dissapointed i did not have the time to keep up with my ppipes site and be able to see better what the large number of groups sent out.  hopefully i can get my brother to work out the subscription kinks and we will be able to better see the tactics of the different progressive organizations.

    •  Richard Viguerie (none / 0)

      Not sure of the spelling of his name, but it was Richard Viguerie who was the Republican trailblazer on this, back in the late 1970s. He was the direct mail guru that played such a huge role in getting Reagan elected president in 1980.  E-mail is simply another form of direct mail, of course.  So the Republicans have been ahead of us on the use of direct mail for a quarter century now.

      In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

      by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:59:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  direct mail (none / 0)

        is very different from bulk emailing.  some of the ideas may be the same, but the response rates differ dramatically. the most interesting thing is that people donate at a higher rate to emails than they do to direct mail pieces.  some of the firms who specialize in direct mail are branching out to email campaigns, but the most successful ones are from people new to the system like what Dean did or moveon's missleader program.
        •  E-mail is direct mail (none / 0)

          No, e-mail campaigns are a form of direct mail.  It's all direct marketing, which is to be distinguished from marketing via retail outlets.  The post office may not be involved, but it's still the marketer (Kerry, Bush, Ron Popeil) reaching out directly to the prospective customer (you, me), without the use of any intermediary (Safeway, The Gap, Macy's).  Response rates may differ, but that doesn't change the essential nature of the communication.

          In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

          by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 11:25:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  no (none / 0)

            there is a big difference.  the only times when direct mail and bulk emailing is very similar is during the monitary asks.  however, even there differences emerge.  you can go back to the email well for money more often than traditional mailing.  the writing style is different and typically much shorter.  it is much easier to goal based e-fundraising than traditional bulk mail.  additionally, you could never rent your org's email list out to another group in the way many groups do with snail mail lists.
            •  forest and trees (none / 0)

              Again, you are missing the forest for the trees. The essential element of direct mail is that the seller is communicating directly with the prospective buyer -- whether it's through snail mail or e-mail doesn't change the direct nature of the communication.

              E-mail is certainly cheaper than snail mail, for obvious reasons, but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the communication. Nor does writing style change the fundamental nature of the communication. Writing style is partly a function of the mode of communication, sure. For example, in a snail mail direct mail piece, there are certain conventions you should follow that don't apply to e-mail, such as having the last sentence on the page carry over to the next page, to keep people reading.  Writing style is also driven by the nature of the product, however. You use a different writing style when promoting a political candidate or charity, for example, than you would when selling nutritional supplements.  As for whether you would rent out your lists, that again doesn't change the fundamental nature of the communication.  There is much more negative karma associated with spam at this time, which makes it harder to sell/rent e-mail lists.  The key factor in selling the lists is the integrity of the list owner. Some are committed to protecting their relationship with their customers, and some are not.

              In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

              by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 11:51:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i believe we are looking at this (none / 0)

                issue from two different perspectives.  i am interested in how we are doing with our e-communications as compared to the Republicans.  i believe that they have a much better tech infustructure, but they do not hold all the cards when it comes to fundraising.  they are very good in the mail, but we kicked their @ss in fundraising on the net.  we may have abused the list a bit, but we brought in the cash.
                •  Now we are in sync! (none / 0)

                  Oh, now we are definitely in 100% agreement.  I think that we used e-mail pretty well to raise money (thank you, Dr. Dean!).  It's an open question whether we overdid it, with too many solicitations than we needed, resulting in turning off people.  I was certainly turned off, but not enough for me to withhold my vote.

                  I would hope that we can catch up to the Republicans in terms of the other part of your equation -- communication. Now that the DNC has such a huge e-mail list, there should be two-way communication on a monthly basis (at least), updating us about issues, and soliciting our advice on various matters.  If the DNC is smart, they will NOT include any solicitations for at least 6 months.

                  In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                  by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 01:57:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Email lists are rented all the time (none / 1)

              Just like in direct mail lists are compiled, bought, traded, rented and sold all the time.

              The value of email direct marketing is the cost of a mailing is so much lower than the regular kind.

              The failure of a badly done email campaign is that people tune it out like all the other Bulk Commercial Email they get -- the ubiquitous spam.

              Email marketing can be tremendously powerful -- if you build up a relationship with your readers.  Simply considering that they are a source of cash is not just abusive of the relationship but in the long run unprofitable.

              A good email series will over time sort and qualify your list, so that you don't dun those who are having trouble keeping a roof over their heads but would be willing to write an LTE that clarifies the campaign position for their local newspaper readership. In this and other ways you would inspire and encourage each to give as each can.

              I'm working on a book about using your web site and emails to help small business owners run and promote their business, so I have done a lot of research and thinking on the issue.  I'm surprised to read that the Kerry campaign did not get some of the basic principles of marketing let alone email marketing.

              The Next Agenda "For Progressive Canadian Politics"

              by Bionic on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 01:03:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i have not (none / 0)

                come across a non-profit that rents its list out and i have worked for a couple and get over 40 of them feeding into a website i run.  there is a difference between e-marketing for businesses and e-activism, both in tactics and demographics.
                •  Fair enough (none / 0)

                  In terms of renting out lists with the orgs you deal with.
                  Do you think the Right's "faith" based organizations were so circumspect?

                  The right to privacy is a serious issue to grapple with and many average web surfers have no idea what they agree to when they request some sort of information.  They fail to read the fine print that expressively gives permission for their email address to be "shared".

                  Do you think no one asked anyone on their org's list to somehow join another list, ie by responding to some sort of poll or request for information?  

                  That no one shared their mailing list by writing about some other org's concern with directions on how to get involved in that org's list?

                  Whether for business or for non profit both sides need to build relationships with their readers, need to ask them what their problems are and how happy they are with the service you provide.  

                  I think you can read here how many people feel that the email campaigns they were subjected to did not do these things.  And it seems to me the KE suffered for it.

                  The Next Agenda "For Progressive Canadian Politics"

                  by Bionic on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 01:33:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  i should clarify (none / 0)

                    I wrote:"They fail to read the fine print that expressively gives permission for their email address to be "shared"."

                    I should have said:"They fail to read the fine print on some sites that expressively gives permission for their email address to be "shared"."  

                    And that those sites don't have to be non profits to sell/rent their email lists to non profits.

                    The Next Agenda "For Progressive Canadian Politics"

                    by Bionic on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 01:36:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  sure they all have a privacy policy (none / 0)

                      which you can usually get at on the bottom of the website here are some examples here  here and here.  most orgs have very detailed ones that do not permit them to rent their list.  

                      that said once they do in some form have your name they do not fail to use it to the max.  users frequently find that when they sign a petition that they somehow failed to read the fine print or uncheck a box that automatically signed them up for the list.  most of the orgs employ compainies like Kintera or GetActive that create their websites and their activism centers.  these companies have regulations that they set for unsubscribe links and how easily you can get someone on your list.  beyond that the organization sets up the full privacy policy that goes into more detail.

                •  ACLU (none / 0)

                  Actually, the ACLU rents out it's mailing list (I don't know about e-mail, however) pretty shamelessly considering what the organization is all about. I made a donation to the ACLU, using my middle name in addition to my first and last name...and in a short time I was subjected to a flood of solicitations from liberal organizations, all addressed to me using my middle name.

                  In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                  by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 01:59:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  yup (none / 0)

                    pretty standard practice i am afraid. HRC, Sierra Club, they all do it.  the funny thing is that they sell each other their lists and it goes round and round.  it is pretty refreshing not to have it happen with email.  people get enough spam the last thing they want is an organization they respect and trust passing on their email address.

                    p.s. if you dont want an org to sell your name, just make sure your request it when you sign up.  they let you know in the fine print of most mailings if you are a member that there are options out.  it is a simple change to a flag in a database for them.

                    •  Ears are burning (none / 0)

                      Oh my, not 5 minutes after I posted about the ACLU selling my name, my phone rings and it's the ACLU!!!!

                      In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                      by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 02:17:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  lol (none / 0)

                        you can ask to get off their phone list too.  or just tell them to bug you once a year to renew.  oh and a good option is to give once a month, they can gouge you for a fair amount, but you never get renewal notices or phone calls unless they screw up.
    •  This is the biggest thing we missed (none / 0)

      From what I understand, the repugs have been organizing GOTV through press releases and emails via the fundamentalist and -- now Catholic churches. They stared doing this way before this election.

      Repugs can communicate through the infrastructure of the churches. They have websites and email and buses.

      So what do we do?

      I have friends active in MoveOn, and they get their emails. I also have G/L friends, who have their own email lists, and I have other friends who were connected through Kerry for president emails. Now that the election is over, can someone figure out a way to merge the blogs and the email lists, so all the progressive constituencies can  share ideas or, at least, sort of be on the same page? Perhaps democrats can't do this -- because of our independence  -- but damn, we aren't going to win unless we have even stronger and more united coalitions, and I can't figure out a more effficent way to do that than through blogs or email.

    •  Thematics (none / 0)

      I work in the internet industry and agree with the general sentiment here.

      The newsletter messages actually did work effectively to raise money and it seems to me that raising money was their biggest concern with the internet. In other words, they learned the lesson of Dean a bit too well.

      I don't know if it alienated any Dem. voter to the point of discouraging a vote becuase, after all, the motivation of the anti-Bush voters here was pretty high.

      However, I do think it eventually caused the Democratic base to tune out from the Kerry message. Messaging just seems to be a big problem with the party. Have they ever ONCE been able to distill the platform into a simple two-word message as Republicans have with "compassionate conservativism"?

      The larger issue here is that the whole campaign lacked a coherent theme. If it had a theme, then it would have had a message, it would have resonated more with moderate swing voters, and email newsletters could have picked up and reverberated the themes through grass-roots talking points. Without a theme, their only point in newsletters could be "give money" or "go read our website to find out more...."

      I agree that Mary Beth needs to go. If they don't bring in some professional communications people next time, we should start another Party.

  •  Evaluate, Learn, Implement. (4.00 / 4)

    The most striking thing about how BC04 and KE04 worked differently was that the Democrats just seemed to have the strategy of "register voters and they will come".  

    The BC04 team, on the other hand, used every campaign stop as a volunteer opportunity (no wonder they wouldn't let Dems or undecided in).  After the stump speech, those attending were directed to phone bank, canvass, whatever while they were still in a fevered pitch.  And it worked!  

    Democrats on the other hand had to scramble to find volunteers to fill needs in specific states (like Maine).

    I agree that one of the downfalls of the Dem party was that I only heard from them when they wanted money.  It was VERY irritating.  Besides, after what they did to Dean, I made sure to let them know they would not receive one red cent from me.

    I disagree with you about the Dean campaign.  They used email to communicate about the community building within the party/campaign.  Towards the end, they switched to mostly fundraising - but THAT'S a whole other discussion.

    "Whatever you do may seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it." - Gandhi

    by MaineMerlin on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:34:54 AM PDT

  •  Couldn't agree more (none / 0)

    I wound up working with MoveOn.org rather than the DNC, because all I kept getting from the DNC were requests for money. MoveOn actually wanted my time, my energy, my ideas, which ultimately was a lot more appealing to me.
    •  metoo (none / 0)

      I also liked MoveOn's targeted GOTV effort, trying to make sure that occasional voters got out. Very effective in my deep blue, older neighborhood.

      W was elected to protect Them from Us.

      by Radical Middle on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:40:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Much more effective (none / 0)

      People at work talked about the MoveOn email. It got attention and action. No one ever said "Did you see that email from the DNC?". The DNC seems terribly lazy to me - at least mentally. They seem to not really care and be going through the motions.

      Only small minds want always to be right - Louis XIV

      by Jamais Vu on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 11:18:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it was (none / 1)

        probably because they accompanied the email with "look at our new ad, contribute if you want it shown" or some other content-driven push along with a donte button.

        As we say in the web business "content is king."  And Kerry's email sadly didn't deliver that -- the MoveOn model should be the norm, not the exception.  Music for America did pretty well too IMHO, lots of event pictures and they even had some great "Partisan Jab" shorts.  Add in some form of entertainment or infotainment and it'll be much more memorable.

        •  Why not do both? (none / 0)

          As you say, Moveon's emails had content and fundraising.  And I liked 'em.  I had more tolerance than some here for DNC/K-E emails, and donated often, but I never looked forward to reading them.  They should have done Moveon's bit and covered issues/news, then tied fundraising to it.  An idea would be to split the emails into columns so the fundraising button was handy and not to be missed, but the bulk of the email could be on substance.  Also, agreed with an earlier post that staffers should have been writing and credited for writing these on a personal basis.  Much more human, much more motivating to get out yourself and work the campaign.
      •  You're Right (none / 0)

        People at my office were always forwarding the MoveOn E-mails to each other -- I don't think anyone ever forwarded the DNC e-mails.  MoveOn made you feel part of the process.  Here is this ad, watch it, if you like it help us get it on the air.  Sometimes I gave, sometimes I didn't. But I gave more often than I've ever given in my life.  

        Live in St. Louis? Meet fellow bloggers at "a blograiser" at the Royale on May 21.

        by maryb2004 on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 12:03:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  what I didn't like about the DNC mails (none / 1)

      was this "just send us the money and let the professionals handle the rest." Great job, guys. MoveOn actually cared about my opinion and wanted me to get involved.
  •  Another reason to worry... (4.00 / 3)

    Most of the Democratic officials/politicos/press-folk that I have talked to are interested in one facet of the net-roots campaign - fundraising.

    To be sure, whenever anyone asks about ideas we came up with on Jeff Seemann's campaign (officials & press), the questions eventually strayed to a fundraising capacity.

    I would always protest and try to steer the conversation to other potential uses and ideas - but  not many really wanted to listen to those ideas.

    Your statistics are further reason to worry that our "dominance" of the netroots is something in jeopardy during the next election cycles.

    Tim

    •  This is an area of concern. (none / 0)

      Especially since email is inexpensive, and it's easier to get talking points out there via email.

      What I've noticed is that Dem. campaigns are scattershoots.  They don't use all of the resources to create one big message.  For Dems, it's email/phone calls for fundraising. Advertising and free media for talking points, and then, moving from one talking point to another.  The Dems need to focus better.  They should use every type of medium to get talking points out there, and such.  

    •  BlogPAC (none / 0)

      The next election cycle I will donate my money and time to BlogPAC and MoveOnPAC.

      I'm soooo through with the DNC. Speaking of which, why hasn't Terrible McAwful resigned in shame?

    •  Just posted... (none / 0)

      I just created a diary, a virtual disseration on the press/party's preocupation with the netroots as an ATM machine.

      I talked about the details evidencing this from the inside of Jeff Seemann's race.  It also includes inside dish about netroots outreach ideas we came up with, and some that were scrapped.

      The diary is HERE

      Tim

  •  I don't agree on Dean (none / 0)

    ...he could use his email-list because people knew what he stood for. His speeches clear. The party rejceted him because they chose electability over agenda. And defeat is what they got. More here

    "All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher." Ambrose Pierce

    by jandsm on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:36:02 AM PDT

    •  Agreed (none / 0)

      I think you could walk up to 100 random Americans, and more people would know where Dean stood than Kerry.

      I'm not saying Kerry's positions weren't strong or right, but jsut raising money isn't enough.

      And I really want to know where all the money that was raised for the recount and for fighting fraud went.

      •  If only... (none / 0)

        If I heard one more person say "Oh, if they'd only nominated Dean..." I was going to smack someone.  Sure, maybe they'd be saying the same thing about Kerry if Dean had been nominated, but it did seem like that folks who disagree with Bush but still voted for him liked Dean better than Kerry.
        •  In the 'electability' equation (none / 1)

          ...they forgot to factor in 'likeability' and 'respect' and 'feel they're being honest.'

          Those are Dean's strengths and Kerry's weaknesses.

          Guess they thought Vietnam + Bush sucking = electable which also = enough for voters.

          Nope.

      •  A friend who worked inside the K/E campaign says (none / 1)

        the lawyeres are on the ground in ohio and looking at challenges to the thousands of spoiled ballots, questionable voting machines, etc.  Don't give up hope.  But don't get too hopeful either, two big letdowns that close together might be too much;)
        •  Don't give me hope - at all (none / 0)

          because Kerry/Edwards had a nation that could easily have been persuaded by a strong leader who was a viable alternative to Bush, and destroyed our future with their crappy crappy campaign.

          And then they quit on us before the ballots were counted.

          I have NO hope for K/E and if they stumble into office somehow, it will be purely because of the colossal miscalculation of the GOP - and we know the GOP does not let mistakes like that happen.

          •  respectfully disagree (none / 0)

            Kerry didn't run a perfect campaign, lord knows ("Knowing what I know now, I still would have authorized the war resolution.  Did I mention I love pissing on my base?").  Still, the facts were out there plain as day for anybody who wanted to look.  Even if all a voter did was watch the debates (and a good many did), it was pretty obvious that the incumbent was incompetent, in over his head, and petulant to boot.

            Kerry came off as strong, self-assured, a natural leader (this coming from a guy who viewed Kerry as his fourth choice in the primaries) in those debates.  It should've been a knockout blow.

            This election made me question the leadership of the party, sure.  But more than anything else it made me question my faith in US democracy.  Has the electorate simply become too shallow, ignorant, and/or stupid to make even the most glaringly obvious decisions?  Maybe there's no way we could've won.

            Of course, it would've been nice to have had a Howard Dean run.  Even if he'd lost, it would've been nice to have lost on our principles.  As it is, however, I think Bush would've destoryed him.  New England fringe hippie anti-war liberal, that's what the sheep electorate would've bought.  

            (sorry for the downer of a post--you'd think I'd be in better spirits by now)

  •  Very Good Point (4.00 / 4)

    I don't know what data K/E '04 has on response rates, but I think they really pushed the fundraising solicitations way beyond the point of dimishing returns.  I more or less quit even opening mail from the campaign once I'd given all that I could afford to give.

    Their real mistake was using it like they use direct mail lists of small donors, except much more frequently, given the lack of printing and postage costs.  I suspect that the people on their email lists tend to be somewhat younger (and more educated/politically spohisticated) than the folks they target with direct mail.  (i.e. I'm not impressed with getting a "personal" email from Joe Lockhart - it's just cheesy...)

    They should have used it more to give their supporters talking points to win over their friends, relatives, etc.

    •  talking points! (4.00 / 2)

      What a great way to use email... distribute talking points!  There were lots and lots of Kerry supporters, especially in red/purple states, who wanted to argue for Kerry with their more conservative friends, but didn't have the language for it.  

      A pithy summary of talking points (or even a single-issue talking point) would have done wonders for those people.

      I don't want to knock the Internet fundraising too hard, because i think it's a fundamental key to wresting control from the DLC corporatists and putting the party back in the hands of the grassroots. The problem wasn't the fundraising, it was that the Kerry campaign didn't use email for much else.

      The Dean campaign was different that way.  Lots of cool stuff came in email.

      W was elected to protect Them from Us.

      by Radical Middle on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:43:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I got Talking Points in PA (none / 1)

        The Pennsylvania Kerry campaign sent us talking points almost every day.  Guess what...

        They were as complicated and "nuanced" as our canididate.  They weren't so much talking points as they were talking essays.

        Sigh...

        When the world was born, it was born on fire, and I'm watching it burn.--RealWest

        by hillaryk on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 11:01:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed, sorta (none / 0)

        I suppose I'm one of the select few who didn't mind the fundraising emails.  Yes, there were a lot of them, but I would donate a small amount about every two or three emails with the feeling that the wealthy RNC was the 800 pound gorilla that we had to fight against.  I have absolutely no regrets about doing so, either.  

        But I agree that better use could have been made of the email campaign and Kos and others here have hit the nail squarely on the head.  

        Talking points (ie., "how to talk to your undecided friends and neighbors") would have been helpful, I suppose.  Lots of good suggestions on this thread.

      •  This is K/E's greatest blunder, bar none (none / 1)

        A pithy summary of talking points (or even a single-issue talking point) would have done wonders for those people.  

        They never had ANY talking points, or soundbites.

        The campaign had a bloody 250+ page PDF, not even a printed and distributed book, full of policy and positions. That's fine. I read it. I was probably one of 20 people, including the proofreaders, who did. I'm a pretty decent communicator and I couldn't summarize it into talkable points with people that much. They never even tried!

        They could not or would not, and certainly did not, distill their message into strong, concise statements that resonated with people, captured the imagination, could be repeated.

        On this morning's NPR, Scott Horsely (sp?), who travelled with Kerry's campaign, said that there was not one talking point or soundbite line from Kerry where he didn't step on the applause, or otherwise play it weakly. In contrast, Don Ganye (sp?) said that every time the President got a new talking point or soundbite, he'd fumble the words a few times then deliver it perfectly.

        Ganye also spoke of the President's burning driven desire to win. Of course he wanted to win. Did anyone ever see that just burning from John Kerry? Nope.

      •  Talking points?! (none / 1)

        I challenge you to name the central campaign theme!

        They didn't start using the phrase "out of touch" until fricking September!

        -Hope never cost Corporate America a dime -Somebody blow Bush so we can impeach him already.

        by DWCG on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 12:32:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Clark had a Talking Pts email (none / 1)

      And I think Dean did too.  I believe that was a daily email that was separate from the normal newsletter.  I think there were 2-3 solicitations a week (Dean seemed like everyday) and that was about it.

      I stopped reading the Kerry newsletter months ago.  I mean it just got to the point where I'd just check anything from a campaign and click "Delete Checked."

      I don't mind there being a contribute link at the top and bottom of every email, but geez, you got to give me a reason to want to open the email first.  Tell me about a new feature, good polling numbers, and upcoming events in my area; send me a real letter from the Boss, ENCOURAGE ME TO GO TO THE MEETUP!

      -Hope never cost Corporate America a dime -Somebody blow Bush so we can impeach him already.

      by DWCG on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 12:26:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is what irritated me... (4.00 / 2)

    I agree whole-heartedly that the DNC was money-grubbing at its worst.  Every email sounded like this:

    The RNC is raising more money than us!  Give us money!

    Wow!  Really convinced me, hence why most of my donations we to 527s or GOTV operations, oh and Howard Dean.  A true voice against the war.

  •  Money V GOTV (none / 0)

    The Dem money requests weere to small donors.  Rep relies on big money.  The GOTV efforts were not that much different in magnitude.  They succeeded in GOTV by using other lists to make personal contacts.  Example:  I saw some very attractive young Gooper GOTV workers based going door to door in my neighborhood.  They must have been using registration data because they did not come to my house.  

    The point is:  Email worked for Dems in securing donations.  It is not clear that it worked for goopers in GOTV above the non-email targeting that they were doing.

  •  I dont think that is neccesarily proof (none / 0)

    Can you automatically know that the emails led to this?

    I think, judging by the Kerry vote numbers, we did quite a good job of getting out the vote. (That to me, is why the loss hurts so much.  Because we did what we never had previously accomplished, and still lost.)

    Would more emails to people who are already supporters and probabaly donors, really help get out the persuadable middle 20 percent of the electorate?  I have my doubts.

    •  Here! Here! (none / 0)

      Could not agree more. You would think we lost by a landslide. Until we are willing to do what it takes no matter if it's good for the country as a whole or not the Reps will have much more to work with than we do. I prefer being a party that wins less often than one who acts like a bunch of thugs and then call it patriotism. I believe we will win when we do not allow them to define what the election is all about. We can only do that when the Media is truly unbiased. How often did they ignore the democratic agenda and highlight Bush and his. The swift boat stuff works to a great extent because the media treated their rantings as if they were gospel.  They pushed the idea that Bush was stronger and more honest. Really?  this is th same man that has never done anything in his life to further the needs of the country unless there was something in it for hiM. I think Kerry was just the opposite. With the help of the media Bush managed to make Kerry look like the loser and himself look like a hero. How did that happen?
  •  Tuned Out Is Right (4.00 / 3)

    I tuned out the campaign emails myself because every single one said "gimme, gimme, gimme."

    Rather, present the issues in a succinct, "talking points" manner to assist voters in talking to others

    AND...

    ...hit the other guy's lists!

    I know there is only so much ca$h to play with, but it is hard to reach new voters if you only preach to the choir.

    The DNC needs to hear this.

    Today is the tomorrow we worried about yesterday.

    by Long Haul on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:38:45 AM PDT

  •  Dean campaign Emails (none / 0)

    The Dean campaign used their emails not only for fundraising but to ask for input from the grassroots which helped to keep everyone connected.  And Democracy for America is still doing this.  I got used to getting a response from them so that when I tried submitting a comment to the Kerry campaign and only got a canned response telling me that they got so many submissions that it was impossible to get to answer all of them, I was disgusted and never tried it again.
  •  I submitted this comment to KE04 early on (none / 1)

    In fact, I issued my complaint about all the money request email before Kerry even chose Edwards - I got an email back saying they would consider my suggestions - obviously not.

    My suggestion was that they provide information about the candidate, an interesting story or an interesting bill Kerry had helped pass or contributed to, and then on the bottom just a link to donate. I didn't want to know about the urgency - I already knew - I wanted to know about the candidates. It's no wonder some people were still confused.

    •  Yes! So frustrating!! (none / 0)

      I emailed the campaign about this early on, too (sometime in the summer), and because I figured my email wouldn't get read, I sent a paper letter to Mary Beth Cahill's attention at the main headquarters.  I told her to stop just sending the fundraising emails, to tell us stories that would get us excited about something Kerry had done, or give us some information to share with our undecided friends and coworkers instead.  I even mentioned MoveOn and TrueMajority as examples of how to do it right.  But there was no response, of course, and no change in their approach.  
  •  Bingo (none / 1)

    One of the first things that turned me off about the Dean campaign was this attitude of 'you just give us the money and let us figure out how to win the election with it'. Kerry later followed exactly in this mold, but - and I think this is key - offered absolutely NONE of the populist empowerment that so punctuated Deans early campaign in return. Result? I gave Dean $400 and Kerry nothing but my vote. Money doesn't win elections - votes win elections.
  •  I remember (none / 0)

    the day before the election, people were actually complaining about this to everyone in a diner I happened to be at.  The two people talking about this seemed REALLY pissed off.  And one of them was a volunteer for the Kerry campaign.
  •  I had often thought about that. (none / 0)

      It often bothered me that the Dems were always begging for money.  I really don't have any money to spare lately, so you lost me there.  If I was to recieve an email every day that was about the issues I care about, that made me feel connected, and told me what other people are thinking about in the party, I probably would have responded better.  They just assumed I was in the know about what was going on.
       How many people here believe in the plurality of beliefs in the party, but don't know how to express those beliefs to a single minded wingnut when he needs to.  Most of us don't unify our messages with other, but rather have to wing it and explain what we believe in on our own.  Mind you we usually do fairly well in giving our viewpoints, but we aren't really doing it in a unified way.
      People will say that Dems can't do that because we have so many viewpoints.  But somehow Europe is managing the European Union.  We are not any less important.  We haven't branded our beliefs.  The reds have branded a kind of absolute morality, and although I personally don't thing that is what they won with by itself, I do think that they could have branded anything and used it against us effectively, and they do.
       It's possible to form a more reliable brand in the eyes of the public.  How long will it be before tax cuts to the rich starts to result in buyers remorse, or corporate (the rich) control over everything, or Puritanical and Apocallyptic morals for Americans living in the 21st century.  It's pretty easy to polute those brands.  But our emails didn't do that.
       Next time around, in 2006, with all those emails, better than half of them had better be about what kinds of things Dems believe in (number one being that it is OK to belief alot of things), and they we had better start forming our own brand.

    Obstruction of Justice: Most people are idiots... But don't tell them. It'll spoil all the fun for those of us who aren't.

    by d3n4l1 on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:46:36 AM PDT

  •  Completely true (none / 1)

    You are completely correct.  I tuned these e-mail messages out in August, because all they ever wanted from me was my money. They almost never provided me with useful, interesting information about the campaign and it's progress. Rarely was there information about Kerry's position on an issue. These e-mail messages did nothing to connect us to the campaign and make us a part of the effort. It was a complete shakedown, pure and simple.

    In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

    by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 10:47:51 AM PDT

  •  We Still Have Money Problems - related to states (none / 0)

    Unfortunately, we will still need more money next time.

    We need a wider playing field statewise in Presidential elections.    We will need more money next time so we can play as aggressively in at least a couple of their states.    BC04 had the strategic luxury of being able to play aggressively in more of our states.  

    •  You can't get Money for Nothing (none / 0)

      The money the DNC got was purely for the raw materials of truth that was there.  People invested with the belief that those raw materials would be manufactured in some way, and would bring a larger "profit" to the DNC.
        That didn't happen.  This is why people had to go the route of the 529's and bloggers initiatives.
        Think about how much more money would have been produced if just a few people stopped the begging and just wrote about the issues.  How much more effectively would the money have been used if the DNC was focussing on the issues, than on money issues, and even voter turnout, as the primary focus.  
         The issues are always the primary path.  Everything else is secondary gain.  You cannot even have a party without issues.  Even a wide variety of viewpoints on the same issues can be brought into the party.  Thats what I believe Democrats are about today. Modern Progressives who will discuss ideas, and not just read them out of an ancient manuscript.