Disruptive Party Building: From a Straw to a Funnel

by: Matt Stoller

Wed May 14, 2008 at 17:00


The evolution in field and the reimagining of politics continues apace.  Back in May, 2007, I pointed to this quote from David Plouffe.

"Don't get me wrong," said David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager and Rospars's boss, "the Internet is a powerful organizing and fundraising tool, and it's getting more and more important every day, but it's still not the persuasion and message tool that TV is."

Though I criticized him at the time, I believe Plouffe was correct.  Obama's speech on Wright was perhaps a singular messaging moment for the internet, and the pushback on the gas tax came from the internet.  But by and large, the messaging from Obama has been TV messaging, and it has worked.  Plouffe was correct about the internet's impact on field, as I noted at the time.

Matt Stoller :: Disruptive Party Building: From a Straw to a Funnel
Social networks will be combined with voter files, which have seen dramatic improvements since 2000.  And fundraising, field, and media will have converged.  Candidates will be putting out youtube clips early to raise money, identify supporters, and win primaries.  All of this has been tested already, and it works.

Rock the Vote, in 2004, registered 1.2 million voters with a simple online voter registration download tool.  That's more than twice as much as they had ever registered in any other cycle, including the youth-spike year of 1992...

The number of 18-29 year old voters who voted in 2004 versus 2000 jumped from 15.8 million to 20.1 million, an increase of 4.3 million.  With Facebook, MySpace, and Youtube turning intensely political, it's pretty clear that voter registration, and specifically, being able to count voter registration and compete over it, will be a killer ap.

Finally, field will be at least in some part measurable and put online.  Facebook alone has 22-24 million members, and is growing at 150,000 members a day.  MySpace is over 100 million.  And though it's unclear how many of these user accounts are citizens and how seriously they take participation in these public spaces, the fact that there are these public spaces, and that they are gargantuan, is a game-changer.  My guess is that the opinion leaders in these communities are traditional pundits and stars, but it doesn't have to be this way, and bands and bloggers are in the mix as well.

If Rock the Vote experiences the type of growth of regular Web 2.0 startups like Flickr, Facebook, MySpace, Youtube, etc, there's no reason that 18-29 year old voting block can't expand its share of the electorate by 3 or 4 points.  This would swing Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, Iowa, and Ohio.  And it would put North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, and Arkansas into the swing category, while pulling New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania out of swing state territory.

So far, according to Rock the Vote, more than 3 million new voters have registered this cycle, and the youth vote has roughly doubled.  According to an email from Kat Barr at RTV, "since July 2007 more than 860,010 people have used our online system to register to vote, including 592,016 under-30 voters!"  This online tool, which Credo Mobile was instrumental in putting together, is just one of the many significant innovations in and outside of the party developed from 2004-2007.

The sheer hunger of the country for something different is pushing organizers to use these tools.  In 2004, it took a good amount of time before Zack Exley and the Kerry online team could convince organizers to use email to build crowds for events.  They had a 'straw' approach to organizer: phone trees, community leaders, robocalls, free and paid media, mailers, issue groups.  The raw hunger of the country and a maturing set of organizers has turned this upside down.  Now there is a giant funnel, where energy and money and people can be pulled into an extremely narrow top-down structure.  People can organize themselves, register themselves to vote with simple reminders from centralized groups, find events, find each other, and bother one another to vote.

I'll have more on this soon.  The key distinction between what we have now and a fully functional 21st century political apparatus is that the content creation is still fairly centralized and distributed.  At the margins, you see some disruptions, like parkridge47 and 'Yes, we can'.  But Plouffe was correct.  The primary did not end until Tim Russert said so, even though all of us knew it has pretty much been over since March.  The internet has not displaced king TV, yet.


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
tv v. web (0.00 / 0)
The primary advantage that television offers is breadth of audience. Many people (older, less affluent folks especially) just don't use the internet with any frequency. My mom has probably used the internet fewer than 20 times. It's pathetic.

So, it's understandable that emphasis on television remains strong.

That being said, it continues to amaze me how effective the email smear campaigns against Obama have worked. Television, for the most part, has not paricipated in the propogation of these lies, yet something like 15% of the nation believes he's a muslim (in addition to other sinister stuff).

That's unfortunate (obviously) because the internet is generally a far more intelligent place to learn about political matters. The peer review among bloggers is one key component, and there seems to less careerism corrupting the commentary. But, also the availability of unfiltered video and other materials provides voters an opportunity to limit unwelcome media influence. For those genuinely interested in credible information, it is far superior to television. The problem is that many people are too intellectually lazy to carry out the exercise of self-education.

Okay, I'm just rambling. But, I really hope the internet continues to mitigate the political ignorance fostered by the shamelessly shallow television media. I think it will, but I don't expect it to happen that quickly.

Oh, shit. (off topic) Edwards just endorsed Obama!


Email is v different (0.00 / 0)
I can't find it for the life of me, but I was reading something the other day that was all about the gap between high email competence and general email use, which is far more common.

There are an awful lot of people with ISP-based email that they ended up with more or less without knowing there were alternatives. It takes quite a lot of time, trial and error, and socialization to use email in the same context that someone would who has the web-comfort and knowledge base to be a political blog reader (which I only say because blogs are incredibly hard to find, by general standards, and a prerequisite to finding them is often a high degree of socialization as a netizen.) But email really isn't that hard to use and it's offered everywhere, so it's not surprising that it's seen rapid adoption by the same set of people who're used to direct mail.


[ Parent ]
TV vs Internet (0.00 / 0)
I don't suspect the internet will ever replace TV politically; not exactly, at least.  The internet and TV will slowing converge over the next decade or so, something that will happen outside of politics.  (What, exactly, is the difference between Tivoing a show when first broadcast and automatically downloading a show as soon as it becomes available?)

But at the end, that thing we used to call TV will still have powerful, respected voices the rest of us make fun of.  Perhaps he'll be from a network or she'll be from a 'blog', but those voices will still exist.

Russert voice only mattered because the other news guys thought it mattered, not because the average American watched it live.

So the question is, who will those respected news guys be?

Or, perhaps I'm wrong, and there will no longer be such thing as a prevailing conventional wisdom among the American population and it will all be smaller communities connected on line.  But I don't think so.  Just as Kos dominates conventional wisdom within the liberal blogoshere, something will take the next higher level currently held by the newspapers and TV.  I suspect it will ultimately be the same people, just in a different wrapper.


Just a question (0.00 / 0)
The 18-29 year-old group isn't static.  Every two years there are a new group of 18-19 year olds who can vote, about 8-8.5 million or so of them, and about the same number "graduate" into the 30+ year olds.  So if 20 million youth voted in 2004, that's about 42% voting.  Not all registered vote, so every cycle another 3.5 million or so young people have to be registered just to keep pace (to say nothing of people who have to reregister because they move).  To really increase the youth share, say up to 50+%, something like 6 million plus new voters would have to register each cycle, no?  (That would be 4+ million of the new 18-19 year olds and another couple million of the 20-29 group.)

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

The parrrr (4.00 / 2)
Worth noting: the internet will never be able to "call" an election like russert. There's no mechanism for that kind of quick consensus.

It'll be interesting to see what a real deliberative structure looks like. I think we could see a return to meaningful convention (or some other meaningful gathering) proceedings, as people actually decide it's necessary to dialog about how best to proceed.

I mean, the idea of convention-as-infomercial has declining currency as well. Alternatives could be interesting.

Still, feels like we're a few cycles away from really having something truly different.

Me | My Work | Future Majority


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox