Outside Democratic Media Group Ditches Ad Campaign

by: Matt Stoller

Thu May 15, 2008 at 13:13


Chris Cillizza adds another wrinkle.

"Progressive Media will not be running an independent ad campaign this year," David Brock, the head of the organization, confirmed in a statement obtained by The Fix this morning.

"Progressive Media was established to be an independent on-going progressive issue advocacy organization," Brock added. "We were not established for one issue, one candidate or one election cycle. But donors and potential donors are getting clear signals from the Obama camp through the news media and we recognize that reality."

Independent outside advertising groups will not play a role this cycle.  If you're wearing your Democrat hat, don't worry.  Here's Paul Krugman comparing the economy to electoral outcomes using a model from Alan Abramowitz.

Right now, GDP is flat (falling in the monthly estimates); Bush has a negative net approval of 30 percent or more; and people are tired of Republicans. So it ought to be a smashing Democratic victory. When I plug current numbers into the Abramowitz model (making a guess about 1st-half GDP and assuming that Bush approval in June will be about where it is today), it says 57-43 Democrats.

Democrats are going to romp.  On the other hand, Obama is calling himself a 'former liberal', so progressives have work to do to make this a progressive victory not just a Democratic one.  Remember, for all his caution, Obama has also said the following.

"I didn't' say I liked Ronald Reagan's policies," Obama explained. "What I said was that was the kind of working majority we need to form in order to move a progressive agenda forward."

UPDATE:  The 'former liberal' comment was apparently a slip-up.

Matt Stoller :: Outside Democratic Media Group Ditches Ad Campaign

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Outside Democratic Media Group Ditches Ad Campaign | 34 comments
I saw the video of the 'former liberal' comment (4.00 / 4)
It seemed pretty clear to me that he just mangled up "liberal" with "former pastor." Besides, "former liberal" would be a really weird way to describe himself if he were making the point that he's not a liberal.

But, whatever. If he says it again we can worry about it.

Go read the Fox News (2.00 / 2)
transcript. Particularly the part when he was 'Expaining Away' his Liberal votes in the Senate. Yes - 'Explaining Away'.

Former Liberal was not a slip up. If it was any kind of slip it was a Freudian slip.

And Matt - how do you propose making a Democratic victory a "progressive victory"? it's one thing to say it but how do you do it. Obama isn't running as a Progressive.

[ Parent ]
Stop being stupid. (4.00 / 1)
This time, the mangling was pretty clear to any human being, who has ever spoken.

The 'former' was meant for the pastor, but the liberal got ahead of itself...

[ Parent ]
Don't act stupid (0.00 / 1)
by calling people stupid.

You didn't even read my post. My main point was that his recent appearance on Fox News contradicts the apologists who said what he previously said was a slip up. Well what he said on Fox News was not a slip up. He was very clear in his intention to 'explain away' his Liberal votes in the Senate.

But of course you totally ignore what he said on Fox News because there is no explaining away what he said.

BTW your name calling when no one called you names is exactly what is going to continue to drive away Clinton supporters from voting for Obama. In other words your attitude and name calling is hurting him not helping him. If you intention is to hurt him then you are doing a great job.

[ Parent ]
So you're saying (4.00 / 1)
That Hillary supporters are thinking about choosing between McRetard and Obama based on if some random person on the web called them stupid or not? Great criteria.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Yeesh. Really hate the use of the word "retard." (0.00 / 0)
Note how it comes into fashion during Repub. administrations.
[ Parent ]
sorry (0.00 / 0)
i know, I shouldn't and I really reserve it for only a few times a year. The real attraction of it is the word has a great sound, the sharp t followed by the drawling long a is just a fantastic combo for suggesting idiocy. I'm sorry I am attracted to its use.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
No (2.00 / 2)
I doubt that any will vote for McCain other than the ones who in polls have said they would - mainly Reagan Democrats.

As for your 'criteria' comment - don't try to put off the behavior of far too many Obama supporters on the backs of insulted Clinton supporters. In doing that you are condoning  not criticizing their behavior, and in fact participating in it with your post.

If name calling and unfairly troll rating comments just because you guys don't like them is part of your 'movement' then it is movement that not many rational people would want to be part of.

You can only throw rocks for so long at people before they get turned off. It's that way in politics and in all aspects of life. If you want Clinton supporters to join you then I suggest you police the biggest offenders on this site and any other sites yo visit.

Don't put the burden on me pal. I have no reason to turn the other check just because your supporters act uncivil and immature. It is they who are the offenders.

[ Parent ]
condoning (4.00 / 1)
don't imply meaning where there is none. What I am doing is highlighting what is a completely stupid criteria for selecting a candidate for the most powerful office on the damn planet. I'm also highlighting what has become a popular, and equally stupid, attempt at blackmail. Its been going on for more than 6 months from lots of people among all the candidate partisans and its utter bullshit. If you dislike Obama policies, fine. If you dislike Obama's skin color, fine. You want four more years of deliberate incompetence, good for you.  But give it a fucking rest with this crap about how "I won't vote for so and so" because you and someone else decided to get in a shit tossing match on some random website. There are more than a million people supporting the Obama campaign in one form or another. The situation is likewise for Hillary. I doubt you or anyone else swearing to withhold their precious little vote has talked with even 1% of those supporters. So shove the blame game, shove your hurt little feelings, shove your stupid blackmail, and please stop trying to represent your candidate's supporters as a block. You don't speak for them and Obama's supporters don't speak for him.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Will you out did yourself (4.00 / 1)
First off let me congratulate you on instead of taking the high road you launched into the exact kind of Obama tirade I posted about. You people never disappoint. You used the word 'stupid' even more times that the original poster. As I said in my last response by not criticizing the poster you in fact were condoning and participating in his actions - and then you, by using the very word that was insulting in the first place you confirmed your participation.

Secondly to suggest I am a racist is way out of bounds. My arguments against Obama have always been policy oriented, experience oriented, best chance to win oriented, post-partisanship oriented. So to pull that I am a racist out of your ass is deplorable. I'm sure you make Obama proud.

It's amazing what people will say to someone from the safety of their computer that they wouldn't say to someone face to face. I look at people who do that as powerless little snots who think typing words makes them something they are not.

You are exactly the kind of person that will continue to drive away Clinton supporters. It is hilarious that someone tells you that certain actions are damaging and instead of making a reasoned argument you do the exact thing that the person told you is damaging. That is STUPID Will. Plain Stupid. You will never win any converts like that and the fact that you don't understand that is pitiful.

I'm done talking to you Will. The racist comment was your downfall.

[ Parent ]
Yes, I saw the video, too. (0.00 / 0)
It was clearly a slip-up. If anyone has any doubts just watch the video - don't rely on the transcript.
[ Parent ]
Matt (4.00 / 3)
the "former liberal" comment was a slip-up as the video clearly showed.

He did not call himself a "former liberal" intentionally but mangled two phrases.  To suggest he meant to refer to himself as a former liberal is not a good faith argument.

Aren't we all formal liberals anyway (4.00 / 4)
isn't that why everyone on the left started calling themselves "progressive" because the "liberal" battle was essentially conceded.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
I am pleased with the announcement, and I urge Progressive Media (0.00 / 0)
To get into the "issues and more better dems" business, as I suggested as the Obama campaign first started talking about being in control of their message.  

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
There's a great story on Repubs. losing their cash advantage (0.00 / 0)
up at Politico, along these lines:
http://www.politico.com/news/s...

"Corporate America's political adjustment accelerated after Election Day. In the first nine months of 2007, such PACs gave 57 percent of their contributions to Democrats, as compared to 43 percent in 2005, according to the Institute's analysis.

Some shifts were dramatic. For instance, the percentage of Home Depot's giving to Democrats soared from 13 percent to 46 percent. Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical giant, increased its Democratic giving from 24 percent of its contributions to 51 percent...

As Republican donations shrank, Democratic giving exploded to both candidates and activist groups."


Hm (0.00 / 0)
Is this going to be followed up on by demanding Freedom's Watch be shut down?

And will Progressive Media still be participating in House/Senate races?

This doesn't seem good to me, actually... (4.00 / 1)
Aren't there things outside groups can do that the candidate himself cannot?  Hitting McCain really hard with an outside group seemed like a good idea to me.
Yah (0.00 / 0)
What about Moveon?  Are we going to forgo negative campaigning through 527's?  I know the Repubs won't....
[ Parent ]
It might be possible to *make* them stop (0.00 / 0)
...if we had an FEC...
[ Parent ]
two issues (0.00 / 0)
1) maybe Progressive Media et al should work on securing lots of small donations.

2) whats up with big donors being stupid. just because Obamas says jump doesn't mean they have to. everyone can see that diversity is good.

anyway - even if everything runs through Obama this fall I still think we'll see fragmentation and re-diversification by Obama's second year when the honeymoon is over and pet interests decide its not always in their interest to ally with the president, even if that person is a Dem.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Where's the outrage, Matt? (4.00 / 1)
To me, this just seems bad. It's unilateral disarmament by our candidate, who we already know wants to be a nice guy during the campaign. In the long term, it's weakening progressive infrastructure by diverting funds. In the short term it's taking power away from the movement in this election cycle so a politician of questionable commitment to our goals can better control his message.

How exactly do you plan to make this a progressive victory? You can't bring progressive issues to the voters if we aren't running ads on progressive issues with progressive framing. You can't bring progressive issues to Obama supporters online when he's consolidated them in his own online institutions. You think down ticket politicians are going to pull their popular presidential candidate to the left during an election? They are going to fall in behind him. Chris' idea of influencing the VP pick is nice, but realistically it is one of the areas hardest to influence.

I'm not used to the kinder, gentler Matt Stoller. Are you more sanguine about this than I am? Do you have some secret plan to exert influence that you're not telling us about? I'm feeling like we're getting left behind, I'd like to hear if/why you're not feeling that way?

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

I think we need to stop being angry at Obama (0.00 / 0)
and get on with making the positive case for supporting independent progressive institutions. Its not really going to serve us well at this time to try and attack the very person that our target audience is trying to rally around. There is not enough of a case being made for progressive institutions, the message is overwhelmingly sour grapes sounding, and its not a good way to convince others. I think the message should be: you should support Obama and progressive institutions too.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Partly responding to this, partly responding to your points earlier in the thread (4.00 / 1)
Firstly, I don't think "we" the netroots can really support progressive institutions. I mean, BlogPac and ActBlue, yes, but we don't have the money to fund think tanks. Even the candidates who have raised absolutely the most form small donors raise around half a million, which just isn't that much money. So the fact that Obama is telling progressive donors what to do is important, and "us" disagreeing while still being super-nice to him is probably going to have exactly zero impact on George Soros et. al.

Secondly, you said above that you think that things will fragment after Obama is elected. I just don't know if that is true. It's hard enough getting any kind of serious organizing against the Bush administration between the netroots, old-style advocacy groups and liberal Congresspeople. Now, obviously some Obama supporters (like the entire Daily Kos) will probably fall out of love with him, but many may not, especially if he maintains his online campaign infrastructure. Imagine trying to challenge Obama from the Left when the few power-players we've found who will seriously challenge Bush or bad congressional Democrats are happy work with the Obama administration and Obama supporters are still invested in defending him online. I just don't see it happening. If we give up our influence in the election, we give it up in the administration.

Thirdly, you accuse me of having a sour-grapes message. That's probably true, though one might be able to make the same appeal in more inclusive terminology. The point is, I don't want it to be adversarial. Ideally we'd have a candidate (I think Edwards would have been one, and I had thought Obama might be) who we can work constructively with us, who will leave communications channels open, and who would allow us to establish ourselves as key institutions in the Party. The reason I'm freaking out (though apparently no one else is) is because that just clearly isn't happening. And if it isn't happening in an election, I just do not see it happening during the administration. So if we aren't allowed inside, and and there's no oxygen for us outside, I see the netroots dramatically declining in significance.

Is that all bad? Not if Obama surprises us with a Left-wing agenda. But I trust Chris Bowers' and Matt Stoller's politics a lot more than Barack Obama's, which is why I don't like seeing this happening.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
mixed (4.00 / 1)
Well i think you are right that sympathetic power players (barbara boxer etc) will gravitate to Obama away from left. And its true we can't fully fund think tanks or whatever. But I'm trying to imagine think tanks moving under the dominance or being bleed by Obama and I guess I don't see that happening. Groups like DMI or Center for American Progress I don't see drying up and disappearing. It logically doesn't follow to me that their mission ends or that their backers will feel their mission has ended just because a Dem is in the White House. I sure hope not! :[]

Where I do see Obama trying to dominate is on online media channels for pushing messages, and campaign infrastructure. Party machinery is always bad because it has no inherent relation to policy - its first pragmatic. But here is Obama's problem, I think his massive support online in particular is temporary. People want to win the White House. But American's can barely stay on the same channel for 10 minutes, much less actively stick with a candidate for years. This is where the machine and activists always win out. The machine has its core rapid supporters and activists do to. Elections then become battles between these sides - except in the rare cases where the machine and activists are aligned on policy. So the cadre of activists will still be around into year 2 as will all the small grassroots groups which each have their pet issue; by way of contrast I think a lot of Obama supporters will have disappeared from the dialog - they'll be back to watching American Idol or whatever. Their attention will mostly return for the next election, but no in policy debates in between.

But hey, I also totally agree with you that we don't really know how it will play out. But I do think the only thing we really can do is keep moving forward with trying to grow an independent base, try to bring in Obama supporters for whom online organizing is new and do stick around after Nov, learn from what Obama has done well to coopt methodologies and tools, and try to find weaknesses to exploit.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
We don't know how it will turn out (0.00 / 0)
This is true. I hope you are right that we are able to organize outside of his administration, but I am concerned it will go very badly.

PS. You are right, that I was unrealistically conflating outside ad groups and other progressive infrastructure. I still don't like him cutting them out in terms of advertising, but the long term effects are probably not too significant.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
a couple of things (4.00 / 2)
We lost our influence over this race and Obama, there's no sense in outrage.  It accomplishes nothing at this point.  Most of the arguments about outside groups hinges on the election, but Obama will win big in November, regardless of spending by outside groups, so outrage will only make critics look stupid.  He won't listen to bloggers, regardless.  He's been quite clear about that.
[ Parent ]
We're going to have to reform after winning... (4.00 / 2)
Yes -- the only question I have is, how long will it take after an Obama victory for a leftward pressure center to reform? For goodness sake, it took long months in 1992 and electing Obama is going to be a lot more exciting and confusing than getting Clinton after Reagan/Bush.

On the other hand, how long did people think it would take after 9/11 for people to get their legs under them and their brains clear again? Obviously, it took the majority several years, until after November 2004. These things take time.

I write this as a mild Obama supporter -- I'm just very aware that he won't be able to be as good a president as most of us want him to be without independent pressure from the left. It's our job to move the center.  

Can it happen here?

[ Parent ]
I don't disagree (4.00 / 1)
Outrage alone does nothing except let people know you're outraged.

But no one listens unless you make them, right? And no one gets credit for something they don't do. So when you said "have work to do to make this a progressive victory not just a Democratic one" I don't quite understand how.

The Responsible Plan was obviously one huge step in that direction, and I hope the signers don't get sucked into a more moderate framing on the issue when Obama starts talking about the "situation on the ground" and "listening to the generals" and rejecting a permanent time-line and whatnot.

I thought advertising might be another good way to do that. By working progressive frames into attacks on John McCain or pro-Obama ads you help build a progressive mandate, but that is obviously not going to happen. Obviously it is no longer likely to happen.

I thought if Obama supporters themselves were tied into a more critical blogosphere there might be some kind of pressure from below, but it is pretty obvious (and I am basing this both on your posts and on my own experience with many supporters on this blog) that Obama's distinct online networks will prevent that from happening.

So the Responsible Plan is great, the primaries are great, Blue to Bluer is great, this election is likely to be viewed as a victory for liberals and Democrats and progressives (none of that "victory for conservatism" he heard in 06). I'm not pessimistic about that. I'm just pessimistic because if we can't influence him during the campaign, we almost certainly can't during the administration. Are you confident that we'll find ways around that? Do you think we'll be fine focusing on local/congressional stuff and basically ignoring the president, even as he sets the agenda?

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
I think the opportunities to penetrate the O-network (0.00 / 0)
will open up once we get into legislating. I was just thinking over here, we'll why haven't we stormed the castle already? but right now there is not that much to debate, since its all fantasy, and any deviation from "get Obama elected" will generally be met with hostility. But this will change.

So lets say in year one Obama is pushing whatever health care plan at MyBO.c -- maybe what we need then is a team of people who work those comment threads. and do so in a polite and informative manner. So going on and engaging people and saying, "hey I just read this interesting thing over here at OpenLeft about that". I think one of the biggest things the progressive online community is going to have to learn is that the adversarial approach we have honed over 5 years is not going to work out the gate with Obama. Its going to take some politer message crafting. That said, Obama's online networks are not going to be any harder to penetrate or exploit than any other forum on the web.

Another thing is, since Obama will be embracing online tech to communicate with citizens, he's going to give us much better opportunities to track his message and respond to it. For example, perhaps we'll see the development of tools that are pulling in announcements from MyBO or automatic metablogging of MyBO, where a blog post on OpenLeft would be synchronized to a blog post on MyBO and the comments would be synchronized through something like OpenID.

his is just off the top of my head. By it strikes me that Obama pulling more people online to engage in politics is a great opportunity not a set back.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
We agree on a lot (0.00 / 0)
So much so that I will point you to a comment a made a while ago in which I said
2) What can we do about this in the short term? Your post seems less critical than Paul's, but I really think it is a problem. Maybe we just have to wing it as we go, but it seems like we need to find a way to really exert leverage on him. Off the top of my head, I could see an "Obama supporters for Universal Health Care" campaign being really effective. Have an outside website, but also promote it on MyBarackObama and Facebook and Myspace. Bring the mandate issue directly to his supporters. Just a thought.

http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

I've been playing with the idea of starting such a facebook group over the summer and seeing what I could do to grow it. Though maybe you're right that that stuff will work better after the election.

The place I disagree with out (though I hope you're right) is that he'll be using tech to reach out to citizens. He'll be doing that through his networks, for sure, but I don't see any indication that he wants to expand it to others. If he did, why wouldn't he be doing it in the campaign



I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
"The 'former liberal' comment was apparently a slip-up." (0.00 / 0)
yeah, m'kay, sure it was.
Huh? Did you see the video? (0.00 / 0)
I did. It was a slip-up.
[ Parent ]
This is very, very, VERY bad news! (4.00 / 1)
How are we going to be able to fight back and fight dirty against the Republican noise machine?  This IS unilateral disarmament!  Obama has to be above the fray, but we, the people, don't!

I don't like this one bit!  Not one bit!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

Outside Democratic Media Group Ditches Ad Campaign | 34 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox