A good subject line will often make the difference between a successful e-blast and a dud. Every organization with an ounce of sense and a list of over a few thousand names will employ A/B Testing on their subject lines, using small random samples from their mailing list to determine what subject lines generate the best responses. You can learn a lot about a group's list by seeing what subject lines it uses in its email program.
So let's look at what subject lines DCCC's blasts have used over the past month. Here are most of the ones I received from various DCCC programs since 2/20. All capitalization and punctuation is verbatim:
terrible decision
about last night
humiliating loss
shocking defeat
crushing defeat
massive loss
agonizing defeat
painful loss
humiliating defeat
painful loss
debilitating defeat
it's too late
devastating loss
defeat
crippling blow
embarrassed
devastating defeat
I'm a little worried
dead in the water:
NEW REPORTS (doomed)
{first_name}: horrible loss
enormous loss
This is DISGUSTING
devastating
this could be the end:
URGENT:
too damn close:
devastating
devastating blow
That's in reverse chronological order, and everything below "about last night" came in BEFORE Alex Sink's loss in the FL-13 special election.
Here's a list of DSCC subject lines from the same period:
crushing defeat
Add your name (stop the Kochs)
too close to call (Rachel Maddow)
Deadlocked (Rachel Maddow)
news just broke (Rachel Maddow)
Nate Silver's warning: (deep trouble)
agonizing defeat
BREAKING: PAUL RYAN (add your name)
ASTONISHING!!!
collapse
nosedive
crushed
wiped out
Paul Krugman just reported:
panicking
Majority Leader McConnell?
NPR: (devastating)
Rachel Maddow: (doomed)
Your jaw might hit the floor:
Nate Silver: (beyond belief)
Not going to sugarcoat this:
Nate Silver's model (brand new)
The Washington Post: (shocked)
This is COMPLETELY unprecedented:
Nate Silver's warning:
We can make some assumptions from these lists. DCCC's list responds well to very negative subject lines about imminent doom and disaster, and apparently hasn't responded as well to positive messaging in subject lines. DSCC's list really likes Rachel Maddow. Parentheticals and colons are "in" this season. And
Poblano is still awesome.
But there's something here that really worries me. There's a difference between an A/B test result on one e-blast, and the long-term effects of constantly reinforcing an impression that we're eternally getting pummeled.
Look how often DCCC used the word "loss" or "defeat." What kinds of losses and defeats are we talking about? Humiliating (I), shocking, crushing (I), massive, agonizing, painful (I), humiliating (II), painful (II), debilitating, devastating (I), crippling, devastating (II), enormous, devastating (III), and crushing (II).
And look at what all of the one-word subject lines on these lists were:
defeat
devastating (I)
devastating (II)
collapse
nosedive
crushed
panicking
This is not the vocabulary of a movement that's making progress. These are the subject lines of a team playing defense.
Now, it's possible that some of the subject lines above were sent to me as part of A/B testing and weren't, in fact, the ones that went out to the full list. But that's unlikely, given the volume of emails we're talking about. And there were some more optimistic subject lines from both DSCC and DCCC (mostly around the end of February's fundraising push, or when they wanted to give me a free sticker or something), but the dominant theme coming through isn't reassuring.
Perhaps the problem stems from the fact that DSCC and DCCC are partisan but not ideological, meaning they can't openly promote positive, progressive change like the CPC's Better Off Budget. Without being able to point to an affirmative Democratic agenda, there aren't a whole lot of messaging options for these committees.
The closest we have to a unified party agenda seems to be "don't let the things we did four years ago get repealed," which automatically puts us on an inherently defensive footing. It's hardly the inspirational call to arms that we need going into the Midterms.
We didn't really have a Democratic agenda in 2010, either. Presumably, the concern now (as then) is that candidates in close districts don't want to have to defend unpopular ideas. The irony, of course, is that by not proposing ideas to defend, we're stuck permanently on defense. That's not the right posture to have going into this election.
I hope we figure that out before DCCC ends up sending out an "about last night" email on November 5th.
