Misinformation and myth-making lead to uninformed opinions, and there are some things that have floated around the blogosphere for way too long. It's not helpful, and I think that debunking some of these myths will help people understand some political dynamics better. You may not like those dynamics but understanding them is key to changing them.
So in the spirit of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (who said "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts") let's get on with a few of the netroots' favorite myths and misinformation. This edition focuses on myths relating to the party, campaigns, and party committees.
Myth: The "bad" Democrat got the national party committee's backing. DC Dems just want conservaDems!
Reality: Sometimes true, but the national party committees also rely on local and state stakeholders when it comes to candidate recruitment and deciding where to spend resources. Some local and state stakeholders are as bad or worse than some of the "DC Dems" people rail about in the netroots.
National party committees rely heavily on local and state parties and stakeholders (state and local party leaders, major individual donors, local labor leaders, state-based progressive organizations and activists, etc.) in deciding which primary candidates to back and what races to get involved in. National party committees sometimes make bad calls, but in analyzing "why" something is the way it is, it's sometimes a mistake to assume that the mean national folks are making the "wrong" decision without factoring in local politics and what they are hearing from locals (who often have their own axes to grind or are in their own way rather antiquated in their thinking). Sometimes the party committees and others folks at national are given bad information from local stakeholders. (David Plouffe was never really gone from Obamaworld, but his "re-emergence" post-MA-Sen came with (among others) a very explicit message that he was going to be doing independent assessments about various races. The Coakley campaign was practically non-existent and the information funneled to national people was bad.)
Myth: The netroots are the base!
Fact: The netroots is not THE base. It's part of the base.
For the purposes of this section, I define netroots, not as all online political engagement, but more or less the loudest progressive activist bloggers.
The netroots will never fully understand Democratic politics until it acknowledges where they differ from the rest of the base. And the first step is acknowledging that lefty activist bloggers are not THE base, but a part of the base. When campaigns do targeting, demographics and other criteria are used to model the electorate, and while there are some overlaps demographically among the different parts of the base, by and large, lefty bloggers are whiter, wealthier, and more likely to have undergraduate and graduate degrees than the Democratic base as a whole. (I remember after the first Kos Convention, now Netroots Nation, that some were taken aback by the lack of racial diversity among attendees.) The demographics for DailyKos are here. Demographics do affect how someone views issues (and how important an issue is to someone), and the CW of a website with a readership that is 97% white is often not going to be reflective of the Democratic base. In fact the demographics of the netroots is more in line with the demographics of the Republican party; indeed, white men who usually vote for Democrats are more likely to get wrongly targeted by mail and robocalls from the Republicans than white women who usually vote Democratic.
So what the heck is the Democratic base anyway? When Democratic political operatives talk about the base, they're talking about labor, African Americans, many but not all Latinos, many but not all college campuses, unmarried women, etc. So there's a general profile of who is a Democratic voter. That's half the battle. The other half is getting them to show up. There are base voters, and then, there are infrequent base voters -- folks who don't always show up to vote at the polls, but when they do, they usually vote for Dems. There are many reasons why some one may not vote. More on this in the next section.
Everyday there are dozens and dozens of posts throughout the netroots that fail to take into account exactly who is a part of the Democratic base. Why is this important? Because demographic and geographic differences matter in how to reach voters and does affect how someone gets elected. A failure to understand the electorate means failure at making progressives a larger slice of the electorate.
Myth: The netroots are Obama's base!
Fact: Eh, a slice.
Obama's core support is largely made up of demographic groups that are underrepresented in the netroots. He has a strong core of African Americans, a number of Latino voters, young voters, and unmarried women. Of course, he also has the support of the rest of the Democratic base that the netroots doesn't speak for, but I highlight those voters because those demographic groups vote at lower rates in midterm elections than presidential ones, no matter how good or bad the political environment is for Democrats. These voters are Obama surge voters who are part of the Obama base in the sense that they'll show up if Obama himself is on the ballot, but despite the fact that they are demographically also part of the Democratic base, many are also 'infrequent voters.' One reason why some Democrats are running to the center is that they know that some of these voters are just not going to come out and vote in 2010 no matter what they do, and the electorate is going to be more conservative or less progressive than the one in 2008. This is especially true given the current political environment, but would be true even if the political environment were more favorable to Democrats. This doesn't mean that Democrats shouldn't act to get as many of these voters to come out to vote, but it does mean that one should consider how these voters are sometimes motivated differently than how the netroots are motivated.
In addition, he does have a number of independents and Republicans who will stick with him through thick and thin in a way that qualify them as a part of Obama's base but not the Democratic Party's base. Now, these folks obviously don't make up a large percentage of independents or Republicans overall, but in 2008, they made up approximately 20% of Obama's core support.
I'm sure someone will run in with accusations of being my being a shill for somebody, but facts are facts. At a certain point, if you're frustrated with something, it might do some good to re-think assumptions. If you don't have an understanding about how many progressives there are and what the Democratic base is, then, you're going to have a tough time getting what you want, pushing things in a more progressive direction, and figuring out what messaging works. Activism without understanding the electorate is like trying to get to a place you've never been before without a map and without even knowing where you're starting from. It just doesn't work.
Myth: All members of the Democratic base are progressive.
Fact: Ha! We all wish! If that were true, y'all would be much happier with the party.
The Democratic base is not necessarily progressive in many places. In some places, the Democratic base is actually fairly moderate. Moreover, not everyone is progressive on all issues. Just because Democrats in one district are generally progressive on economic issues, it does not mean that they are progressive on other issues.
Moreover, many members of the Democratic base have different priorities. Suffice it to say, the netroots sometimes gets very worked up over smaller issues that just don't register for most of the Democratic base. On these issues, making the issue relevant beyond the echo chamber has to be factored in.
Myth: ActBlue is a total netroots resource! Money to ActBlue means money going to progressives!
Reality: It's an important tool for the netroots but also used by candidates as their fundraising software.
ActBlue is awesome, but remember that the money that has been raised through the ActBlue website isn't all "netroots" (defined as active progressive bloggers).
Campaigns have used BSD, NGP and other fundraising software for their online fundraising. They can also use ActBlue. Candidates link directly to ActBlue, and people who donate to candidates thru the candidate's website don't necessarily overlap with the netroots. Therefore, when ActBlue says it's raised $120 million since 2004, not all of that is attributed to the netroots. If the netroots were actually responsible for all that money, then, y'all would be much happier with the party.
An example: A friend managed a targeted federal race last cycle. The campaign used ActBlue as their clearinghouse for donations. The candidate won and is currently in Congress. Said member of Congress is a moderate and was not the progressive choice in the primary (though this member is by no means as much of a problem as the usual targets of progressive outrage).
Myth: Direct mail fundraising is worthless and so are fundraising canvasses. Go online, campaigns!
Reality: There's value in non-online fundraising, and don't assume that everyone is comfortable with donating over the internet.
Grassroots fundraising includes online fundraising, direct mail fundraising and door-to-door fundraising.
- Online fundraising is obviously cheapest and most efficient, and will continue to grow in importance.
- Direct mail fundraising is still important as there are some people who will not give money over the internet (and some who quite frankly couldn't tell you how to turn on a computer). In addition, the messaging in the direct mail will reinforce messaging that the recipient is getting in other avenues (e.g. TV ads, earned media coverage, etc.) There may be a point in the future where direct mail fundraising is obsolete, but we're not there yet.
- Door-to-door fundraising is labor intensive and seems like a waste of time, money and energy. Believe it or not, there are organizations that raise quite a bit of money this way. Even if the fundraising isn't that hot door-to-door, it's not a complete waste, because an organization can use this opportunity to refine voter lists and do IDs (candidate support and/or issue) in the process. Those IDs and the data gathered is important. You can also test messaging while going door-to-door raising money. Again, believe it or not, there are some who will donate to someone at the door but won't donate online. Moreover, really good door-to-door fundraisers can be hard to say no to.
Myth: The longer the live call script, the better
Reality: Depends on who is doing the calling and the reason for the call.
A live call is when an actual person is calling (as opposed to a robocall).
If you're sending a request to a broad email list, the shorter the call script, the better. Longer scripts and extensive talking points discourage volunteers (especially those who are newer to political activism) and mean fewer calls.
When doing volunteer GOTV calls and persuasion calls, the script needs to be just long enough so that the caller can get all the relevant information (e.g. candidate support, likelihood of voting, willingness to volunteer, etc.) If it's a persuasion call, campaigns will supplement the basic script with additional talking points that callers can use if they wish.
When getting people to call legislators (be it local, state or federal), the script needs to be general enough so that when people call, they can add their own personal reasons for supporting/opposing legislation. The calls are more organic that way, and if an office is getting a lot of calls from what seem to be people who aren't normally involved in activism, sometimes there's greater weight given to them.
Paid phonebanking is a little different. I've seen persuasion scripts/talking points be several pages long. There's training involved when it comes to doing these calls.
Myth: All that matters in a poll is if the respondents support a policy/candidate or not.
Reality: Intensity of support and elevating an issue is just as important.
Voters tend to vote based on the three most important issues for them; sometimes the top issue just completely trumps everything else. Elevating an issue (making it a bigger topic of discussion in the news, in campaign materials, and at the watercooler) is as important as what someone's views are on an issue. Environmentalists have been frustrated over the years when polls showed the public overwhelmingly say that protecting the environment is important, yet if you give voters a list of 10 issues and ask them to rank them in importance, a lot of voters will rank the environment dead last. It's why environmentalists and conservationists have been tying pro-environment policies to the economy, which is something that most people would rank higher than the environment.
Examples of the Effect of Elevating an Issue:
- We saw the difference elevating an issue made in 2004, when Bush was able to convince a significant number of voters that even though he wasn't with them on bread and butter issues, that he'd keep them safe. There were voters who thought, it doesn't matter if I have Social Security in 20 years, if I'm killed by a terrorist.
- Elevating an issue that Democrats poll better on than Republicans is a good thing. In 2008, there were people who normally voted Republican but found themselves with an underwater mortgage and went Dem; it didn't matter if they didn't agree with Democratic policies on many issues -- it was the economy that was the deciding factor.
Some Tactics Used to Elevate an Issue (and Making Sure It Stays as a Priority):
- An ad. The issue of national security in 2004 was elevated by the Bush campaign (which knew that national security needed to be a major factor in the campaign for him to win.) So ads that get a lot of attention can elevate an issue (or in the case of the Wolf ad in 2004, make sure that voters go into the voting booth thinking about national security.)
- An earned media story. Leaking opposition research to the media and pitching stories is another way to elevate an issue whether it's something like the economy or something that is more of a character issue.
- Ballot initiatives. The ads and earned media generated from ballot initiatives means that the issue is elevated and can spillover into candidate races.
There's always a piece of legislation or an issue that has support or is facing opposition. But how intense is that support or opposition? Why does intensity matter?
- For some people there is an issue that is so important to them that even if it's not an issue that is not elevated, that issue is what those people will vote on. Abortion & choice is an example. There are people who liked everything about Obama and were having trouble finding a job, but because they were anti-choice, they "couldn't" vote for him. On the other hand, you had pro-choicers who weren't wild about Obama but never considered McCain who is anti-choice.
- Another way of looking at it: Sometimes you'll find polls that say 65% of Americans support policy X, and you'll find politicians slow to move on the issue. Well, 65% may support policy X but most of that 65% don't consider it a priority; it may also be that the 35% in opposition are really exercised about the policy. They don't just oppose a policy; they really, really, really oppose it. It's a dealbreaker for them.
- A lot of times polls will look at approval/disapproval ratings for a politician. It's important to note how much someone approves or disapproves of someone. The easiest way to think about it is that those who strongly approve or disapprove are not movable. They're not going to budge no matter what you do. But those who somewhat approve or disapprove are persuadable and messages are tailored to them.
Myth: Based on this ad, it's obvious that the whole ad campaign is crap.
Reality: Don't judge an ad campaign just by a single ad.
Obviously, individual ads need to be done well, but judging an ad campaign based on one or two ads is generally not the way to go. A lot of times ads build on each other. You make an argument on the economy against a candidate in different ways in different ads, and the closing argument ad will run through all those points. It's important to factor in if the ads are reinforcing each other message-wise.
Moreover, in bigger and longer campaigns, you can convey consistency and authenticity if the tone and content (visual & verbal) is consistent. It might not be conscious, but sometimes it's not about specific soundbites but about the overall impression that you get when surrounded by all the campaign hubbub.
Myth: A candidate got X% in an non-targeted race the previous election cycle, and that % should be the criteria used for determining that candidate's viability.
Reality: A candidate's viability in a future race should depend on analysis that's deeper than what someone got in a previous race.
There are factors that candidates and campaigns can't control. How many votes a candidate received is not always a function of how good a race someone ran or how good a candidate someone is. Hypothetically, there's a candidate who spent $200k in a U.S. House race that was not targeted and got little earned media coverage. He received a higher % of the vote than any Democrat in the previous three decades. Does this candidate have a case in saying that he showed that he could win? No. If he got little media coverage and didn't spend a lot to get his name out there, it's likely that someone at the top of the ticket pulled lots of Dems (both frequent and infrequent voting) out to vote; these Dems in turn just checked the box next to whoever had a "D" next to their names downballot. It could also be a function of someone taking advantage of demographic shifts, and a future race would be far different if it became targeted because this candidate would have ads run against him. That's not to say that this candidate couldn't make a case that he could run and win. It's just that there are tons of factors that go into determining a candidate's viability (and for that matter, analysis of a race) than previous results in non-targeted races.
Myth: Everyone who is a part of the base is reachable via the major progressive activist blogs.
Fact: No. In fact a lot of progressive and Democratic activity happens with little coverage in the netroots. Some Democratic base voters do not even have a computer at home.
Don't get me wrong. The netroots has its role, but remember that not all base Democrats get their news online and not everyone uses the internet in the same way. There are tons of organizations who represent many members of the base and do play an important role in turning out voters and educating members on races up and down the ticket, but their netroots presence is small.
I happen to think that many of these organizations should increase their netroots presence if for no other reason than to prevent bad information from spreading in the netroots. However, people in the netroots have to acknowledge that many of these organizations may have strategies and may use messaging that people here aren't necessarily going to agree with. No one organization gets it right all the time, but it's important to understand that some organizations have had successes in areas the netroots haven't. Don't dismiss something as "DLC" or whatever just because it's not something you'd do. That said, it is also important to understand the full breadth of what each organization does and assess the efficacy of each organization individually.
It's also important to note that not only do people with internet access use the internet to get information differently than many netroots folks do, but it's also important to note that many members of the Democratic base do not have regular access to the internet at all. I did GOTV once in poor urban communities, and we could not send out an email to remind folks of when they were to come in for their canvass shift. We had to make phone calls, because many did not have internet access at all. Even calling did not reach some, because some only had access month-to-month to pre-paid cell phones. If someone signed up one day to come in to canvass, by the time the reminder call went out, that number might be dead. It also means that these kinds of lists can't be used again the next time, since many of the numbers will be bad by the time the next election rolls around.
If anyone has any other myths, feel free to post below.
Other backgrounders of mine on various aspects of campaigns and the progressive landscape:
- An overview of the progressive landscape & the importance of coalitions
- The Democratic Base & How Demographics Can Tell Us What & How Voters Think
- A Guide to Some Progressive Organizations: Who They Are, What They Do